UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
AT    LOS  ANGELES 


THE    GOVERNMENTS    OF    EUROPE 


35  %  9      *l 


n&$*$£ 


THE  MACMILI.AN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK    •    BOSTON    ■    CHICAGO  •    DALLAS 
ATLANTA    •    SAN    FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN   &   CO.,  Limited 

LONDON   ■    BOM  HAY    ■    CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  Ltd. 

TORONTO 


THE  GOVERNMENTS  OF 
EUROPE 


BY 

FREDERIC   AUSTIN    OGG,    Ph.D. 

PROFESSOR   OF   POLITICAL   SCIENCE   IN   THE   UNIVERSITY   OF   WISCONSIN 

AUTHOR  OF  "  THE  ECONOMIC  DEVELOPMENT  OF  MODERN  EUROPE,1' 

"  SOCIAL   PROGRESS   IN   CONTEMPORARY   EUROPE,11   ETC. 


REVISED   EDITION 


Nefo  fgotft 

THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

1922 

All  rights  reserved 

2816? 


Copyright,  1913  and  1920, 
By  THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.     Revised  edition,  published  October,  192a 


NortoooD   iDrcss 
.1   S.  f  lushing  ( ick  &  Smith  <  '<>. 

od,  Mass.,  1    3  \ 


o-a 


c*f^,G 


Go 

MY   FATHER 


PREFACE 

The  first  edition  of  this  book  was  published  in  1913.  At  that 
time  I  wrote  :  "  It  is  a  matter  of  common  observation  that  during 
the  opening  years  of  the  twentieth  century  there  has  been,  in 
many  portions  of  the  civilized  world,  a  substantial  quickening  of 
interest  in  the  principles  and  problems  of  human  government. 
The  United  States  is  happily  among  those  countries  in  which 
this  development  has  taken  place,  and  we  have  seen  in  recent 
times  not  only  the  organization  of  societies  and  the  establishment 
of  journals  designed  to  foster  research  within  the  field,  but  also 
a  remarkable  multiplication  and  strengthening  of  courses  in 
political  science  offered  to  students  in  our  colleges  and  uni- 
versities, as  well  as  the  establishment  of  clubs,  forums,  extension 
courses,  and  other  facilities  for  increasing  political  information 
and  stimulating  political  thinking  on  the  part  of  the  people  at 
large. "  The  book  aimed  to  promote  the  intelligent  study  of 
government,  on  comparative  lines,  by  supplying  working  de- 
scriptions of  the  governments  and  parties  of  both  the  larger  and 
smaller  states  of  western  and  central  Europe. 

Since  1913  the  structure,  functions,  and  problems  of  govern- 
ment have  undergone  important  changes  in  every  European 
state ;  in  Germany,  Russia,  and  the  former  Dual  Monarchy, 
Austria-Hungary,  reconstruction  has  sprung  from  overt  revo- 
lution. The  volume  has  accordingly  been  rewritten  throughout, 
not  only  with  a  view  to  better  adaptation  of  contents  and  pro- 
portions to  text-book  use,  but  in  order  to  take  due  account  of 
the  far-reaching  developments  of  the  war  period.  It  is  hardly 
necessary  to  say  that  many  European  governmental  systems  are 
still  in  an  exceptionally  fluid  state,  and  that  party  alignments, 
notably  in  Great  Britain,  Germany,  and  Russia,  are  unusually 
unstable.  There  is,  however,  no  such  thing  as  fixity  or  finality 
in  politics;  the  uncertainties  that  surround  the  European 
political  situation  to-day  differ,  after  all,  only  in  degree  from  those 
with  which  the  student  has  always  to  reckon.  Furthermore, 
study  of  the  principles  and  methods  of  government  is  never  so 
profitable  as  when  great  political  changes  are  taking  place  before 
one's  eyes. 

vii 


viii  PREFACE 

The  general  plan  of  the  presenl  volume  differs  from  that  of  the 
first  edition.  \  number  of  chapters  dealing  with  the  govern 
ments  of  minor  ;tates  have  been  omitted.  Chapters  devoted  to 
Austria  Hungar)  have  likewise  been  dropped,  and  no  attempt 
has  been  made  to  cover  the  governments  of  the  several  lesser 
states  which  have  risen  from  the  wreckage  of  the  former  Habs- 
burg  dominion.  On  the  other  hand,  the  space  allotted  to  Great 
Britain  is  almosl  doubled,  that  given  to  France  is  practically 
tripled,  and  a  closing  chapter  undertakes  to  set  forth  the  salient 
features  of  soviet  government  in  Russia.  Italy  continues  to 
be  treated  somewhat  briefly,  because  of  the  genera]  similarity 
of  the  Italian  and  French  political  systems.  Switzerland  is 
dealt  with  substantially  as  before.  In  the  case  of  Germany  I 
have  decided  to  retain  chapters  describing  the  governments  and 
parties  both  of  the  Empire  and  of  Prussia  up  to  1018,  partly 
because  every  student  of  comparative  government  ought  to  be 
familiar  with  the  former  German  system,  and  partly  because 
more  of  the  old  system  than  is  commonly  supposed  survives  in 
the  new.  I  have,  however,  added  two  chapters  which  are 
designed  to  outline  German  political  development  during  the 
Great  War  and  to  describe  the  republican  institutions  set  up  in 
19 1 8.  In  this  portion  of  the  book  I  have  drawn  freely  upon 
chapters  which  appeared  in  a  volume  prepared  in  collaboration 
with  Dr.  Charles  A.  Beard  and  published  in  1918  under  the  title 
"National  Governments  and  the  World  War." 

Frederic  Austin  Ogg 

Madison,  Wisconsin, 
August  10,  1920. 


CONTENTS 


1  I. 

II. 

*III. 


/ 


IV. 


"V. 

"vi. 

"VII. 
VIII. 

IX. 
X. 

XI. 

XII. 

XIII. 

XIV. 

XV. 

XVI. 

XVII. 

XVIII. 

XIX. 


PART  I.     GOVERNMENT  AND  POLITICS  OF 
GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND 

PAGE 

Foundations  of  the  Constitution i 

The  Constitution  in  Reconstruction,  1485-1689  .        .  17 
Constitutional  Development  since  the  Seventeenth 

Century 34 

The  Constitution  and  the  Government         ...  46 

The  Crown 58 

The  Ministers  and  the  Administrative  System     .        .  73 

The  Cabinet 93 

Parliament  :  the  House  of  Commons      .        .        .        .112 

Parliament  :  the  House  of  Lords 140 

Parliamentary  Organization 163 

Parliamentary  Functions  and  Procedure  :    the  Cab- 
inet System    176 

Law  and  Justice 206 

Local  Government 220 

Political  Parties  since  the  Eighteenth  Century        .  238 

The  Major  Parties  :  Composition  and  Organization     .  261 
Minor  Parties  :    Labor  in  Politics  and  Irish  Home 

Rule       .        . 276 

Miscellaneous  Party  Issues 296 

Party  Politics  since  1914 313 

Greater  Britain  :  the  Self-governing  Colonies  .        .  336 


PART  II.     GOVERNMENTS  AND  POLITICS  OF 
CONTINENTAL  STATES 


1 .   France 
XX.    The  Rise  of  Constitutional  Government 
XXI.    The  Constitution  of  the  Third  Republic 


357 
374 


IX 


XXII. 

XXIII. 

XXTV 

XXV. 

XX\  I. 

XXVII. 


XXVIII. 

XXIX. 
XXX. 


CON  I  I.Ms 
l  in  l'ki  sident  and  rm  Ministers 

Tin:  Si  1:1  (   [i  RE  "l    l'AKl.I AMI 
'I'm    I'aki.i  uu  N  r\kv  Svsn  m. 

Law  am)  Justice 

I....  \i.  Government  and  Administration 
Political  Partus         .... 


387 
407 
428 
448 
465 
484 


2.   Italy 
noNAL   Development  in  the  Xineteenth 

1 1  i-:  v 5°4 

The  Governmental  52° 

Parties  and  Politics 54° 


3.  Switzerland 

XXXI.     The  Constitutional  System 554 

XXXII.    Government  in  the  Cantons 574 

XXXIII.  The  Federal  Government 587 

4.    Germany 

XXXIV.  I'm   I IoiiK.xzoLLERN  Emfikf.  and  Its  Constitution      .  60S 
XXXV.    The  Imperial  German  Government     ....  628 

XXXVI.    The  Prussian  Government  before  the  Great  War  .  654 

XXXYII.     Political  Forces  and  Party  Alignments  to  19 14       .  675 
XXXXIII.     Tin.   War-Time    Movement    for   Political   Reform 

and  the  Revolution  of  1918          ....  703 
XXXIX.    The  Republican  Constitutio             .        .        .        -717 

5.   Russia 

XL.    The  Soviet  Republic  and  its  Government      .        .  737 


INDEX 


•     755 


THE    GOVERNMENTS    OF   EUROPE 


GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 


PART  I 

GOVERNMENT  AND   POLITICS  OF   GREAT 
BRITAIN  AND    IRELAND 

CHAPTER   I 
FOUNDATIONS   OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

England's  Political  Importance.  —  "  England,"  says  a  modern 
historian,  "  has  taken  the  lead  in  solving  the  problem  of  con- 
stitutional government ;  of  government,  that  is,  with  authority, 
but  limited  by  law,  controlled  by  opinion,  and  respecting  per- 
sonal right  and  freedom.  This  she  has  done  for  the  world,  and 
herein  lies  the  world's  chief  interest  in  her  history."  l  In  enter- 
ing upon  a  study  of  the  governmental  systems  of  contemporary 
Europe  it  is  natural,  therefore,  to  begin  with  England  —  with 
the  nation  that  has  achieved  as  great  distinction  in  the  practice 
and  diffusion  of  political  democracy  as  did  the  Hebrews  in  re- 
ligion, the  Greeks  in  sculpture  and  architecture,  and  the  Romans 
in  law  and  war.  Nowhere  else  can  one  observe  a  political  develop- 
ment so  orderly,  continuous,  and  prolonged.  The  governmental 
forms  and  methods  of  no  other  state  have  been  studied  with 
greater  interest  or  copied  with  better  results.  The  public  policy 
of  no  other  organized  body  of  men  has  been  more  influential  in 
shaping  the  progress,  social  and  economic  as  well  as  political,  of 
the  civilized  world. 

For  the  American  student,  furthermore,  the  approach  to  the 
governments  of  the  European  continent  is  likely  to  be  made 
easier  and  more  inviting  by  acquaintance  with  a  system  of 
political  institutions  which  lies  at  the  root  of  much  that  is  both 
American  and  continental.  There  are,  it  is  true,  not  a  few  re- 
spects in  which  the  governmental  system  of  the  United  States 

1  Goldwin  Smith,  The  United  Kingdom  (New  York,  1899),  I,  1. 

B  I 


2  GOVERNMENTS   OF   EUROPE 

to-day  bears  closer  resemblance  to  that  of  France,  Germany,  or 
Switzerland  than  to  that  of  England.  The  relation,  however, 
between  the  English  and  the  American  is  one,  in  the  main,  of 

common  origin  and  tradition,  while  that  between  the  French  or 
Swiss  and  the  American  i>  one  arising  principally  from  mere 
imitation  or  from  accidental  resemblance.  "  The  history  of 
the  formation  of  the  British  constitution,"  says  an  American 
scholar,  "  is  a  part  of  our  own  history.  .  .  .  The  creation  and 
establishment  of  our  judicial  institutions  and  common  law,  of 
the  supremacy  of  law  over  the  government,  of  our  representative 
system,  of  the  popular  control  of  taxation,  of  the  responsibility 
of  ministers  of  government  to  the  legislature',  and  finally  of  the 
principle,  fundamental  to  all  else,  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  people, 
were  the  work  of  our  English  ancestors."  ' 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  book  to  describe  European  govern- 
ments as  they  exist  and  operate  to-day.  No  governmental 
system,  however,  can  be  understood  without  somewhat  exact 
knowledge  of  the  historical  conditions  and  actions  that  pro- 
duced it.  Hence  a  certain  amount  of  attention  must  be  given 
throughout  our  study  to  the  data  of  constitutional  history.  Es- 
pecially is  this  necessary  in  the  case  of  England ;  for  although 
the  governmental  organization  of  that  country  has  undergone 
many  profound  changes  in  the  present  generation,  and  par- 
ticularly since  the  outbreak  of  the  Great  War,  English  political 
institutions  are,  none  the  less,  still  preeminently  rooted  in  the 
past,  some  of  them  in  periods  removed  from  us  by  many  hundreds 
of  years. 

Anglo-Saxon  Foundations.  —  The  first  distinct  epoch  in  the 
history  of  the  English  constitution  is  that  of  Anglo-Saxon  settle- 
ment and  rule,  extending  from  the  fifth  century  to  the  Norman 
invasion  in  1066.  This  period  contributed  less  to  the  constitu- 
tion of  to-day  than  was  formerly  believed ;  yet  it  originated 
certain  institutions  that  were  of  prime  importance  in  later  times, 
chiefly  kingship,  the  witenagemot,  and  the  local  government 
divisions  of  the  shire,  the  hundred,  the  borough,  and  the  town- 
ship. The  origins  of  Anglo-Saxon  kingship  are  shrouded  in 
obscurity,  but  they  are  known  to  belong  to  the  period  after  the 
settlement;  hence,  monarchy  in  England  is  an  indigenous,  not 
an  imported,  institution.  Apparently,  the  first  kings  were  the 
chieftains  of  victorious  war-bands;  and  many  such  chieftains 
attained    the    dignity.     As    political    consolidation    progressed, 

1  G.  B.  Adams,  Outline  Sketch  of  English  Constitutional  History  (New  Haven, 
1918),  4-5. 


FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE   CONSTITUTION  3 

earlier  tribal  kingdoms  became  administrative  districts  of  larger 
kingdoms,  and,  eventually,  in  the  ninth  century,  the  whole  of 
the  occupied  portion  of  the  country  was  brought  under  the 
control  of  a  single  sovereign.  Saxon  kingship  was  elective, 
patriarchal,  and  of  limited  power.  Kings  were  chosen  by  the 
important  men  sitting  in  council ;  and  while  the  dignity  was 
hereditary  in  a  family  presumed  to  be  of  divine  origin,  an  im- 
mediate heir  was  likely  to  be  passed  over  in  favor  of  a  relative 
who  was  remoter  but  abler.  The  king  was  primarily  a  war- 
leader.  He  was  a  lawgiver,  but  his  "  dooms  "  were  framed 
only  in  consultation  with  the  wise  men,  and  they  pertained  to 
little  else  than  the  preservation  of  the  peace.  He  was  supreme 
judge,  and  all  crimes  and  breaches  of  the  peace  came  to  be  looked 
upon  as  offenses  against  him  ;  but  he  held  no  court,  and  in  reality 
he  had  little  to  do  with  the  administration  of  justice.  Over 
local  affairs  he  had  no  direct  control  whatever. 

Associated  with  the  king  was  the  council  of  wise  men,  or 
witenagemot.  The  composition  of  this  body,  being  determined 
in  the  main  by  the  will  of  the  individual  monarch,  varied  widely 
from  time  to  time.  The  persons  most  likely  to  be  summoned 
were  the  members  of  the  royal  family,  the  greater  ecclesiastics, 
the  king's  gesiths  or  thegns,  the  ealdormen  who  administered 
the  shires,  other  leading  officers  of  state  and  of  the  household, 
and  the  principal  men  who  held  land  directly  of  the  king.  No 
popularly  elected  representatives  were  included.  As  a  rule,  the 
witan  was  called  together  three  or  four  times  a  year.  Acting 
with  the  king,  it  made  laws,  levied  taxes,  negotiated  treaties, 
appointed  ealdormen  and  bishops,  and  occasionally  heard  cases 
not  disposed  of  in  the  courts  of  the  shire  and  hundred.  It  was 
the  witan,  furthermore,  that  elected  the  king ;  and  since  it  could 
depose  him,  he  was  obliged  to  recognize  a  certain  responsibility 
to  it.  "  It  has  been  a  marked  and  important  feature  in  our 
constitutional  history,"  an  English  scholar  points  out,  "  that 
the  king  has  never,  in  theory,  acted  in  matters  of  state  without 
the  counsel  and  consent  of  a  body  of  advisers."  l 

Aside  from  kingship,  the  most  enduring  of  Anglo-Saxon  politi- 
cal creations  were  the  several  units  of  local  government.  The 
smallest  of  these  was  the  township,  which  consisted  usually  of 
a  village  surrounded  by  arable  lands,  meadows,  and  woodland. 
The  town-moot  was  a  primary  assembly  of  the  freemen  of  the 
village ;  and  under  the  presidency  of  a  reeve  it  administered  the 

1  W.  R.  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution  (3d  ed.,  Oxford,  1907-11), 
II,  Pt.  1,  7. 


4  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

township's  affairs.  A  variation  of  the  township  was  the  burgh, 
or  borough,  whose  population  was  apt  to  be  larger  and  whose 
political  independence  was  greater;    but  its  arrangements  for 

governmenl  wore  similar  to  those  of  the  ordinary  township. 
A  group  of  townships  formed  a  hundred.  At  the  head  of  the 
hundred  was  a  hundred-man,  ordinarily  elected,  but  frequently 
appointed  by  a  great  landowner  or  prelate  to  whom  the  land-  of 
the  hundred  belonged.  Assisting  the  hundred-man  was  a  council 
of  twelve  or  more  freemen.  In  the  hundred-moot  was  intro- 
duced the  principle  of  representation;  for  to  the  meeting 
that  body  came  the  reeve,  the  parish  priest,  and  four  "  besl 
men  "  from  each  of  the  townships  and  boroughs  included  in 
the  hundred.  The  hundred-moot  met  once  a  month,  and  it  had 
as  its  principal  function  the  adjudication  of  cases,  whether  civil, 
criminal,  or  ecclesiastical. 

Above  the  hundred  was  the  shire.  Originally,  as  a  rule,  the 
shires  were  regions  occupied  by  small  but  independent  tribes; 
in  time  they  became  administrative  districts  of  the  United 
Kingdom.  At  the  head  of  the  shire  was  an  ealdorman,  appointed 
by  the  king  and  witan,  usually  from  the  prominent  men  of  the 
shire.  Subordinate  to  him  at  first,  but  in  time  overshadowing 
him,  was  the  shire-reeve,  or  sheriff,  who  was  essentially  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  crown,  sent  to,  assume  charge  of  the  royal  lands 
in  the  shire,  to  collect  the  king's  revenue,  and  to  receive  the  king's 
share  of  the  fines  imposed  in  the  courts.  Each  shire  had  its 
moot ;  and,  the  shires  and  bishoprics  being  usually  co-terminous, 
the  bishop  sat  with  the  ealdorman  as  joint  president  of  this 
assemblage.  In  theory,  at  least,  the  shire-moot  was  a  gathering 
of  the  freemen  of  the  shire.  It  met,  as  a  rule,  twice  a  year,  and 
all  freemen  were  entitled  to  come  to  it,  in  person  or  by  representa- 
tion. Those  who  did  not  desire  to  attend  were  permitted  to 
send  as  spokesmen  their  reeves  or  stewards;  so  that  the  body 
was  likely  to  assume  the  character  of  a  mixed  primary  and 
representative  assembly.  The  shire-moot  decided  disputes 
over  land,  tried  suits  for  which  a  hearing  could  not  be  obtained 
in  the  court  of  the  hundred,  and  exercised  an  incidental  ecclesias- 
tical jurisdiction.1 

'The  classic  description  of  Anglo-Saxon  political  institutions  is W. Stubbs, Con- 
stitutional History  of  England  in  its  Origin  and  De  ■  6th  ed.,  Oxford.  18Q7), 
especially  I,  74-182;  but  recent  scholarship  has  supplemented  and  modified  at 
man>-  points  the  facts  and  view-  therein  set  forth.  A  useful  account  (although 
likewise  subject  to  correction  1  is  H.  Taylor,  Origins  and  Growth  of  the  English  Con- 
stitution (new  ed.,  Boston,  1000),  I,  Bk.  1,  Chaps,  iii-v, and  a  repository  of  informa- 
tion is  J.  Ramsay,  Foundations  of  England,  2  vols.  (London,  1898).     A  valuable 


FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  5 

Norman-Angevin  Government.  —  The  second,  and  a  much 
more  important,  period  in  the  building  of  the  English  constitu- 
tion was  the  Norman-Angevin  era,  extending  from  the  landing 
of  William  the  Conqueror  in  1066  to  the  death  of  King  John  in 
1 216.  The  aspect  of  this  period  which  first  arrests  attention 
is  the  enormous  growth  of  the  king's  power  and  the  building  up 
of  a  great  centralized  administrative  system  of  which  the  king 
was  the  autocratic  head.  Monarchy  in  Anglo-Saxon  days  was 
weak.  But  the  Norman  conqueror  was  a  powerful,  aggressive, 
statesmanlike  sovereign  who  with  consummate  skill  maneuvered 
the  results  of  his  invasion  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  the  king  the 
real  master  of  the  country.  Feudalism,  land  tenure,  military 
service,  taxation,  the  Church  —  all  were  bent  to  serve  the 
interests  of  the  crown.  Within  a  generation  England  became  a 
united,  centralized  monarchy  of  the  most  absolute  type. 

This  was  accomplished  in  part  by  the  dissolution  of  great 
earldoms  which  menaced  the  monarchy  in  later  Saxon  days,  and 
in  part  by  an  increase  of  the  power  and  importance  of  the  sheriffs; 
It  was  accomplished  mainly,  however,  by  the  skillful  organiza- 
tion of  two  great  departments  of  government,  i.e.,  justice  and 
finance,  under  dignitaries  of  the  royal  household,  aided  by 
permanent  staffs  of  expert  officials.1  The  department  of  justice 
comprised  the  Curia;  that  of  finance,  the  Exchequer.  At  the 
head  of  the  one  was  the  Chancellor ;  at  the  head  of  the  other,  the 
Treasurer.  The  principal  officials  within  the  two  formed  a 
single  body  of  men,  sitting  now  as  justitiarii,  or  justices,  and 
now  as  barones  of  the  Exchequer.  The  profits  and  costs  of 
administering  justice  and  the  receipts  and  disbursements  of  the 
Exchequer  were  only  different  aspects  of  the  same  fundamental 
processes  of  state.2  The  justices  of  the  Curia  who  held  court  on 
circuit  throughout  the  realm  and  the  sheriffs  who  came  up 
twice  a  year  to  render  to  the  barons  of  the  Exchequer  an  account 
of  the  sums  due  from  the  shires  served  as  the  real  and  tangible 
agencies  through  which  the  central  and  local  governments  were 

sketch  is  A.  B.  White,  Making  of  the  English  Constitution,  44Q-i48j  (New  York, 
1908),  16-62.  A  brilliant  book  is  E.  A.  Freeman,  Growth  of  the  English  Constitution 
(4th  ed.,  London,  1884),  although  it  is  to  be  used  with  caution  because  of  the 
author's  exaggerated  estimate  of  the  survival  of  Anglo-Saxon  institutions  in  later 
times.  Political  and  institutional  history  is  fully  narrated  in  T.  Hodgkin,  History 
of  England  to  the  Norman  Conquest  (London,  1906),  and  C.  W.  C.  Oman,  England 
before  the  Norman  Conquest  (London,  1910) ;  and  an  admirable  bibliography  is 
C.  Gross,  Sources  and  Literature  of  English  History  (London,  1900). 

1  On  the  absorption  of  the  administration  of  justice  by  the  king's  courts  at  the 
expense  of  feudal  and  other  tribunals,  see  E.  Jenks,  Government  of  the  British  Empire 
(Boston,  1918),  9-12. 

2  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  tlte  Constitution,  II,  Pt.  i,  11. 


6  GOVERNMEN  rs  01    El  ROPE 

knit  together.  As  will  appear,  it  was  fn>ni  the  Norman  Curia 
that,  in  the  course  of  time,  sprang  several  of  the  departments 
of  administration  whose  heads  constitute  the  actual  executive 
authority  of  the  British  nation  to-day. 

Untrammelled  by  constitutional  restrictions,  the  Conqueror 
and  his  earlier  successors  recognized  only  such  limitations  on 
the  royal  authority  as  were  imposed  by  powerful  and  turbulent 
subjects.  Associated  with  the  king,  however,  was  from  the  first 
a  body  known  as  the  Commune  Concilium,  the  Common,  or 
Great,  Council.  "  Thrice  a  year,*'  the  Saxon  Chronicle  t(  Us  us, 
"  King  William  wore  his  crown  every  year  he  was  in  England; 
at  Easter  he  wore  it  at  Winchester;  at  Pentecost,  al  Westminster; 
and  at  Christmas,  at  Gloucester;  and  at  these  times  all  the  men 
of  England  were  with  him  —  archbishops,  bishops  and  abbots, 
earls,  thegns  and  knights."  "  All  the  men  of  England  "  n 
of  course,  only  the  great  ecclesiastics,  the  principal  officers  of 
state,  and  the  king's  tenants-in-chief  -  in  truth,  only  such  of 
the  more  important  of  these  as  were  summoned  individually  to 
the  sovereign's  presence.  At  least  in  theory,  however,  the 
Norman  kings  were  accustomed  to  consult  this  gathering  of 
magnates,  very  much  as  their  predecessors  had  consulted  the 
witenagemot,  upon  all  important  questions  of  legislation,  finance, 
and  public  policy.  It  may,  indeed,  he  said  that  the  development 
of  this  Council  forms  the  central  subject  of  English  constitutional 
history ;  for,  "  out  of  it,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  one  process  or 
another,  have  been  evolved  Parliament,  the  cabinet,  and  the 
courts  of  law."  ' 

For  a  half-century  after  the  death  of  the  Conqueror  (1087) 
the  new  system  held  up  reasonably  well,  although  rather  because 
of  the  momentum  that  its  founder  had  imparted  to  it  than  be- 
cause of  any  contributions  made  by  his  successors  of  this  period  ; 
indeed,  the  anarchy  of  the  reign  of  Stephen  (1135-54)  almost 
wrecked  the  entire  mechanism.  Then  came  the  astute  and 
energetic  Henry  II  (1154-89),  who  recovered  all  that  had  been 
lost  and  added  not  a  little  of  his  own  account.  "  Henry  II," 
it  has  been  said,  "  found  a  nation  wearied  out  with  the  miseries 
of  anarchy,  and  the  nation  found  in  Henry  II  a  king  with  a 
passion  lor  administration."-  With  a  view  to  bringing  all  of 
into  obedience  to  a  uniform  system  of  law,  the 
greal  Angevin  sovereign  waged  steady  warfare  upon  both  the 
rebellious   nobility   and    the   independent    clergy.     He  was  not 

1  \V.  Wilson,  The  Stale,  (rev.  ed.,  Boston,  1918),  183. 
-'  Inson,  Law  ■md  Custom  of  the  Constitution.  II,  I't.  i,  13. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF  THE   CONSTITUTION  7 

entirely  successful,  especially  in  his  conflict  with  the  clergy  ;  but 
he  prevented  a  permanent  reversion  of  the  nation  to  feudal 
chaos,  and  he  invested  the  king's  law  with  a  sanction  hardly 
known  in  even  the  days  of  the  Conqueror.  The  reign  of  Henry  II 
has  been  declared,  indeed,  to  "  initiate  the  rule  of  law."  *  By 
reviving  and  placing  upon  a  permanent  basis  the  provincial 
visitations  of  the  royal  justices,  for  both  judicial  and  fiscal  pur- 
poses, and  by  extending  in  the  local  administration  of  justice 
and  finance  the  principle  of  the  jury,  Henry  contributed  more 
perhaps  than  any  other  person  to  the  development  of  the  Eng- 
lish common  law,  the  jury,  and  the  modern  hierarchy  of  courts. 
By  appointing  as  sheriffs  lawyers  or  soldiers,  rather  than  great 
barons,  he  fostered  the  influence  of  the  central  government  in 
local  affairs.  By  commuting  military  service  for  a  money  pay- 
ment (scuta  ge),  and  by  reviving  the  ancient  militia  system  (the 
fyrd) ,  he  brought  the  armed  forces  of  the  nation  completely  under 
royal  control.  By  frequent  summons  of  the  Great  Council, 
and  by  habitual  presentation  to  it  of  leading  questions  of  state, 
he  added  greatly  to  the  importance  of  an  institution  from  which 
Parliament  itself  was  destined  somewhat  later  to  spring. 

The  Great  Charter  (1215).  —In  the  hands  of  able  kings  like 
William  the  Conqueror  and  Henry  II  absolute  power,  although 
sometimes  working  injustice,  was  in  general  beneficent  and 
bearable.  But  in  the  hands  of  weak  or  vicious  rulers  like  Henry 
II's  sons,  Richard  I  and  John,  it  soon  became  intolerable.  Under 
John  a  long  accumulation  of  grievances  led  the  strong  men  of 
the  country,  the  barons,  into  open  rebellion;  and  on  June  15, 
1215,  the  king,  finding  himself  without  a  party  and  facing  the 
loss  of  his  throne,  granted  the  famous  body  of  liberties  known 
as  the  Great  Charter.  No  document  in  the  history  of  any 
nation  is  of  larger  importance  than  this  Charter.  The  whole  of 
English  constitutional  history,  once  remarked  Bishop  Stubbs, 
is  but  one  long  commentary  upon  it.  The  significance  of  the 
Charter  arises  not  simply  from  the  fact  that  it  was  wrested  from 
an  unwilling  sovereign  by  concerted  action  of  the  various  orders 
of  society  (action  such  as  in  France  and  other  continental  coun- 
tries never,  in  medieval  times,  became  possible),  but  principally 
from  the  remarkable  summary  which  it  furnishes  of  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  English  government  in  so  far  as  those  prin- 
ciples had  ripened  by  the  thirteenth  century.  The  Charter 
contained  little  that  was  new.  Its  authors  sought  merely  to 
gather  up  within  a  reasonably  brief  document  those  principles 

1  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  21. 


8  G^VEftNMEN  rS  OF    EUROPE 

and  customs  which  the  better  kings  of  England  had  usually 
observed,  but  which  in  the  evil  days  of  Kit  hard  and  John  had 
been  evaded  or  openly  violated.  There  was  no  though!  of  a 
new  form  of  government,  or  of  a  new  code  of  laws,  hut  rather  <>i 
the  redress  of  present  and  practical  grievances.  Not  a  new 
constitution,  but  good  governmenl  in  conformity  with  the  old 
one,  was  the  object.  Naturally,  therefore,  the  instrument  was 
based,  in  most  of  its  important  provisions,  upon  a  charter  granted 
by  Henry  I  in  iioo,  even  as  that  instrument  was  based,  in  the 
main,  upon  the  righteous  laws  of  the  Saxon  king,  Edward  the 
Confessor.  After  like  manner,  the  Charter  of  12 15  became,  in 
its  turn,  the  foundation  to  which  reassertions  of  constitutional 
liberty  in  subsequent  times  were  apt  to  return;  and,  under  more 
or  less  pressure,  the  Charter  itself  was  "  confirmed  "  by  several 
sovereigns  who  proved  disinclined  to  observe  its  principles. 

In  effect,  the  Charter  was  a  treaty  between  the  king  and  his 
dissatisfied  subjects.  It  was  essentially  a  feudal  document,  and 
the  majority  of  its  provisions  related  primarily  to  the  privileges 
and  rights  of  the  barons.  None  the  less,  it  contained  1  lauses  that 
affected  all  classes  of  society,  and  it  is  noteworthy  that  the  barons 
and  clergy  pledged  themselves  in  it  to  extend  to  their  dependents 
the  same  customs  and  liberties  that  they  were  themselves  de- 
manding of  the  crown.  Taking  the  Charter  as  a  whole,  it 
guaranteed  the  freedom  of  the  Church,  defined  afresh  and  in 
precise  terms  surviving  feudal  obligations  and  customs,  placed 
safeguards  about  the  liberties  of  the  boroughs,  pledged  security 
of  property  and  of  trade,  and  laid  down  important  regulations 
concerning  government  and  law,  notably  that  whenever  the 
king  should  propose  the  assessment  of  "  scutages  "  or  of  unusual 
financial  "aids,"  he  should  take  the  advice  of  the  General 
Council,  composed  of  the  tenants-in-chief,  summoned  individually 
in  the  case  of  the  greater  ones  and  through  the  sheriffs  in  the 
case  of  those  of  lesser  importance.  Certain  general  clauses,  e.g., 
one  pledging  that  justice  should  neither  be  bought  nor  sold,  and 
another  prescribing  that  a  freeman  should  not  be  imprisoned, 
outlawed,  or  dispossessed  of  his  property  save  by  the  judgment 
of  his  peers  !  or  by  the  law  of  the  land,  undertook  to  guarantee 
impartial  and  unvarying  justice;  while  running  through  the 
entire  instrument  was  the  idea  of  limitation  upon  autocratic 
power  —  not,   indeed,  a  twentieth-century  notion  of  constitu- 

1  The  term  "peers,"  as  here  employed,  means  only  equals  in  rank.  The  clause- 
does  not  imply  trial  by  jury.  It  is  simply  a  guarantee  thai  the  barons  should  not 
be  judged  by  persons  of  feudal  rank  inferior  to  their  own.  Jury  trial  was  becoming 
common  in  the  thirteenth  century,  but  it  was  not  guaranteed  in  the  Great  Charter. 


FOUNDATIONS  #F  THE   CONSTITUTION  9 

tional  monarchy,  but  at  least  a  clear  conception  of  the  obliga- 
tion of  the  king  as  a  feudal  magnate  to  keep  within  the  bounds 
of  his  feudal  contracts.  "  What  the  Great  Charter  did,"  says 
an  American  scholar,  ' '  was  to  lay  down  two  fundamental  prin- 
ciples which  lie  at  the  present  day,  as  clearly  as  in  1215,  at  the 
foundation  of  the  English  constitution  and  of  all  constitutions 
derived  from  it.  First  that  there  exist  in  the  state  certain  laws 
so  necessarily  at  the  basis  of  the  political  organization  of  the 
time  that  the  king,  or  as  we  should  say  to-day  the  government, 
must  obey  them ;  and  second  that,  if  the  government  refuses  to 
obey  these  laws,  the  nation  has  the  right  to  force  it  to  do  so, 
even  to  the  point  of  overthrowing  the  government  and  putting 
another  in  its  place.  ...  In  every  age  of  English  history  in 
which  the  question  has  risen,  in  every  crisis  in  the  development 
of  English  liberty,  this  double  principle  is  that  upon  which  our 
ancestors  stood  and  upon  which,  as  a  foundation,  they  built  up 
little  by  little  the  fabric  of  free  government  under  which  we  live."  1 
The  Rise  of  Parliament.  —  The  age-long  contest  between  royal 
absolutism  and  the  forces  in  one  way  or  another  representing  the 
nation  at  large  —  between  the  ruler  and  the  ruled  —  was  thus 
clearly  begun.  It  was  destined  to  go  on  for  many  centuries,  to 
become,  indeed,  the  central  thread  in  the  country's  constitu- 

1  Adams,  Outline  Sketch  of  English  Constitutional  History,  45-47.  Substantial 
accounts  of  the  institutional  aspects  of  the  Norman-Angevin  period  are  Stubbs, 
Constitutional  History,  I,  315-682,  II,  1-164;  Taylor,  Origin  and  Growth  of  the 
English  Constitution,  I,  Bk.  2,  Chaps,  ii-iii ;  and  Adams,  Origin  of  the  English 
Constitution,  Chaps,  i-iv.  An  excellent  brief  survey  is  C.  H.  Haskins,  The  Normans 
in  European  History  (Boston,  191 5),  Chap.  hi.  Two  useful  little  books  are 
Stubbs,  Early  Plantagenets  (London,  1876)  and  Mrs.  J.  R.  Green,  Henry  VI  (London, 
1892).  General  narratives  will  be  found  in  T.  F.  Tout,  History  of  England  from 
the  Accession  of  Henry  III  to  the  Death  of  Edward  III,  1216-1377  (London,  1905), 
and  H.  W.  C.  Davis,  England  under  the  Normans  and  the  Angcvins  (London,  1904). 
A  monumental  treatise,  though  subject  to  a  considerable  amount  of  correction,  is 

E.  A.  Freeman,  History  of  the  Norman  Conquest,  6  vols.  (Oxford,  1867-69),  and  a 
useful  sketch  is  Freeman,  Short  History  of  the  Norman  Conquest  (3d  ed.,  Oxford, 
1901).  Among  extended  and  more  technical  works  may  be  mentioned  :  F.  Pollock 
and  F.  W.  Maitland,  History  of  English  Law,  2  vols.  (2d  ed.,  Cambridge,  1898), 
which,  as  a  study  of  legal  history  and  doctrines,  supersedes  all  earlier  works; 

F.  W.  Maitland,  Domesday  Book  and  Beyond  (Cambridge,  1897) ;  J.  H.  Round, 
Feudal  England  (London,  1895) ;  K.  Norgate,  England  tinder  the  Angevin  Kings, 
2  vols.  (London,  1887) ;  ibid.,  John  Lackland  (London,  1902) ;  and  J.  H.  Ramsay, 
The  Angevin  Empire  (London,  1903).  The  text  of  the  Great  Charter  is  printed 
in  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  296-306.  English  versions  will  be  found  in  G.  B.  Adams 
and  H.  M.  Stephens,  Select  Documents  of  English  Constitutional  History  (New  York, 
1906),  42-52,  and  Univ.  of  Pa.  Translations  and  Reprints  (translation  by  E.  P.  Chey- 
ney),  I,  No.  6.  The  principal  special  work  on  the  subject  is  W.  S.  McKechnie, 
Magna  Carta;  a  Commentary  on  the  Great  Charter  of  King  John  (Glasgow,  1905). 
An  illuminating  exposition  is  contained  in  Adams,  Origin  of  the  English  Constitu- 
tion, 207-313,  and  H.  E.  Maiden  [ed.],  Magna  Carta  Commemoration  Essays  (Lon- 
don, 191 7),  is  of  interest. 


IO  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

tional  history,  and  to  end  only  when  the  people  bad  fully  es- 
tablished tluir  right  to  be  in  all  respects  their  own  master.    In 
tlh>  tremendous  conflict  the  leading  role  on  the  side  of  the  people 
was  played  by  a  great  institution  which  did  not  yet  exist  in  the 
days  of  King  John,  namely,  Parliament.     The  formative  period 
in  the  history  of   Parliament   was  the  second  half  of  the  reign 
of  Henry  III  (1216-72),  together  with  the  reign  of  the  legislator- 
king  Edward  I  (1 272-1307).     The  creation  of  Parliament  as  we 
know  it  came  about  through  the  enlargement  of  the  essentially 
feudal  Great  Council  of  Norman  times  by  the  introduction  of 
representatives  of  classes  in  the  community  which  in  feudal  days 
had  no  standing  there,  chiefly  the  merchants  and  the  small 
landowners  ;   this  being  followed  by  the  separation  of  the  hetero- 
geneous mass  of  members  into  two  coordinate  chambers.     The 
representative  principle  was  no  new  thing  in  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury.    There  were  important  manifestations  of  it  in  the  local 
government  of  Anglo-Saxon  times.     As  brought  to  bear  in  the 
development  of  Parliament,  however,  the  principle  is  generally 
understood  to  have  sprung  from  the  twelfth-century  practice  of 
electing  assessors  to  fix  the  value  of  real  and  personal  property 
for  purposes  of  taxation,  and  jurors  to  present  criminal  matters 
before  the  king's  justices.1     By  the  opening  of  the  thirteenth 
century  the  idea  was  fast  taking  hold,  not  only  that  the  tax- 
payer ought  to  have  a  voice  in  the  levying  of  taxes,  but  that 
between  representation  and  taxation  there  was  a  certain  natural 
and   inevitable   connection.     The   Great  Charter,   as  has  been 
stated,  stipulated  that  in  the  assessment  of  scutages  and  of  all 
save  the  three  commonly  recognized  feudal  aids  the  king  should 
seek  the  advice  of  the  General  Council.     The  Council  of  the 
early  thirteenth  century  was  not  a  representative  body,  but  it 
was  capable  of  being  made  such;     and  that  is  precisely  what 
happened.     To  facilitate  taxation  it  was  found  expedient  by 
the  central  authorities  to  carry  over  into  the  domain  of  national 
affairs  that  principle  of  popular  representation  which  already 
was  doing  good  service  in  the  sphere  of  local  justice  and  finance; 
and  from  this  adaptation  resulted  the  conversion,  step  by  step, 
of  the  old  gathering  of  feudal  magnates  into  a  national  parlia- 
mentary assembly. 

The  first  step  in  this  direction  was  taken  in  12 13,  when  King 
John,    harassed   by   fiscal   and   political    difficulties,    addressed 

1  Thus,  Henry  TI's  Saladin  tithe  of  1 188  — the  first  national  imposition  upon 
incomes  Me  property  —  was  assessed,  at  least  in  part,  by  juries  of  neigh- 

bors elected  by,  and  in  a  sense  representative  of,  the  taxpayers  of  the  various 
parishes. 


FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE   CONSTITUTION  n 

writs  to  the  sheriffs  commanding  that  four  "  discreet  knights  " 
from  every  county  be  sent  to  a  council  to  be  held  at  Oxford. 
In  1254  Henry  III,  needing  money  for  his  wars  in  Gascony, 
required  of  the  sheriffs  that  two  knights  be  sent  from  each  county 
to  confer  with  the  barons  and  clergy  upon  the  subsidies  to  be 
granted  the  crown.  The  desired  vote  of  supplies  was  refused 
and  the  long-brewing  contest  between  the  king  and  the  barons 
broke  in  civil  war.  But  during  the  struggle  the  foundations  of 
Parliament  were  still  more  securely  laid.  Following  the  king's 
defeat  at  Lewes,  in  1264,  Simon  de  Montfort,  leader  of  the 
barons,  convened  a  parliament  composed  of  not  only  barons  and 
clergy  but  also  four  knights  from  each  shire;  and  at  London, 
during  the  following  year,  he  caused  again  to  be  assembled,  in 
addition  to  five  earls,  eighteen  barons,  and  a  large  body  of  clergy, 
two  knights  from  each  of  the  several  shires  and  two  burgesses 
from  each  of  twenty-one  towns  known  to  be  friendly  to  the  barons' 
cause.  These  proceedings  were  unauthorized,  and  indeed 
revolutionary.  Even  the  gathering  of  1265,  as  Stubbs  remarks, 
had  the  appearance  of  a  party  convention,  and  there  is  no 
evidence  that  its  author  intended  such  a  body  to  be  regularly 
or  frequently  summoned,  or  even  summoned  a  second  time  at 
all.  None  the  less,  now  for  the  first  time  representatives  of  the 
towns  were  brought  into  political  cooperation  with  the  barons, 
clergy,  and  knights ;  and  the  circumstance  was  filled  with 
promise.  During  the  next  thirty  years  there  were  several 
"  parliaments,"  although  the  extent  to  which  knights  and 
burgesses  participated  in  them  is  uncertain.  The  period  was 
one  of  experimentation.  In  1273  four  knights  from  each  shire 
and  four  citizens  from  each  town  joined  the  magnates  in  taking 
the  oath  of  fealty  to  the  new  and  absent  sovereign,  Edward  I. 
The  first  Statute  of  Westminster,  in  1275,  declares  itself  to 
have  been  adopted  with  the  assent  of  the  "  commonalty  of  the 
realm."  In  1283  a  parliament  was  held  which  practically 
duplicated  that  of  1265.  In  1290,  and  again  in  1294,  there  was 
a  similar  gathering,  in  which,  however,  representation  of  the 
towns  was  omitted. 

The  meeting  which  in  a  general  way  fixed  the  type  for  all  time 
to  come  was  Edward  I's  "Model  Parliament"  of  1295  To 
this  gathering  the  king  summoned  severally  the  two  archbishops, 
all  of  the  bishops,  the  greater  abbots,  and  the  more  important 
earls  and  barons;  while  every  sheriff  was  enjoined  to  see  that 
two  knights  were  chosen  from  each  shire,  two  citizens  from  each 
city,  and  two  burgesses  from  each  borough.     Each  bishop  was 


I2  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

authorized,  furthermore,  to  bring  with  him  his  prior  or  the  dean 
of  the  cathedral  chapter,  the  archdeacons  of  his  diocese,  one 
proctor  or  agent  tor  his  cathedral  chapter,  and  two  of  his  diocesan 
clergy.  In  the  parliament  as  actually  convened  there  were  2 
archbishops,  18  bishops  with  their  lesser  clergy,  66  abbots,  3 
heads  of  religious  orders,  9  earls,  41  barons,  63  knights  of  the 
shire,  and  172  representatives  of  the  cities  and  boroughs  —  an 
aggregate  of  approximately  400  persons.  There  were  thus 
brought  together,  in  person  or  by  deputy,  all  of  the  leading  classes 
or  orders  of  which  English  society  was  composed,  i.e.,  nobility, 
clergy,  and  commons.  From  this  time  forth,  Parliament  may 
be  said  to  have  been  an  established  institution. 

In  1295,  and  for  a  long  time  after,  the  three  estates  sat  and 
transacted  business  separately;  and  it  appeared  that,  like  the 
Estates  General  in  France,  Parliament  would  permanently 
consist  of  three  houses,  which  would  mean  that  the  nobles  and 
clergy  would  always,  as  in  France,  be  in  a  position  to  outvote 
the  commons.  Gradually,  however,  practical  interests  led  to  a 
different  arrangement.  The  lesser  clergy,  inconvenienced  by 
attendance  and  preferring  to  vote  their  contributions  in  the 
special  ecclesiastical  assemblages  known  as  the  convocations  of 
Canterbury  and  York,  contrived  to  throw  off  their  obligation  of 
membership.  The  greater  clergy  and  the  greater  barons,  in  the 
next  place,  developed  sufficient  interests  in  common  to  be  amal- 
gamated with  ease  in  one  body.  Similarly,  the  lesser  barons 
found  their  interests  essentially  identical  with  those  of  the 
country  freeholders,  represented  by  the  knights  of  the  shire, 
and  with  those  of  the  burgesses.  The  upshot  was  a  gradual 
re-alignment  of  the  membership  in  two  great  groups,  of  which 
one  became  the  House  of  Lords,  the  other  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. The  upper  chamber  practically  perpetuated  the  Great 
Council  of  feudal  times;  the  lower  was  composed  mainly  of 
the  new  elements  representing  the  non-feudal  classes.  By  the 
close  of  the  reign  of  Edward  III  (1377)  this  bicameral,  or  two- 
house,  organization  seems  to  have  been  complete.  It  arose,  not 
from  any  definite  opinion  that  two  houses  were  better  than  one 
or  than  three,  nor  from  any  clear  plan  or  purpose,  but  rather  by 
accident,  i.e.,  because  the  Church,  which,  according  to  con- 
tinental analogy,  should  have  formed  a  third  house,  (hose  to 
remain  outside.'     The  whole  course  of  English  history  since  the 

1  Adams,  Outline  Shrub,  of  English  Constitutional  History,  63.  The  beginnings 
of  the  House  of  Commons  are  discussed  in  a  scholarly  manner  in  D.  I'asquet,  Essai 
sur  les  origines  de  la  Chambre  des  Communes  (Paris,  1914). 


FOUNDATIONS   OF  THE   CONSTITUTION  13 

fourteenth  century,  however,  has  been  profoundly  affected  by 
the  fact  that  the  national  assembly  thus  took  the  form  of  two 
houses  rather  than  of  one,  as  did  the  Scottish,  of  three  as  did  the 
French,  or  of  four  as  did  the  Swedish.    ' 

Growth  of  the  Powers  of  Parliament.  —  In  the  fourteenth 
and  fifteenth  centuries  Parliament  steadily  gained  in  power.  Its 
meetings  were  irregular  and  infrequent.  But  in  the  all-important 
domains  of  finance  and  legislation  it  asserted  and  maintained 
authority  equaling,  and  at  times  transcending,  that  of  the  king. 
In  finance  it  forced  recognition  of  the  twin  principles  (1)  that 
the  right  to  levy  taxes  of  every  sort  lay  within  its  hands,  and 
(2)  that  the  crown  should  impose  no  direct  tax  without  its  assent, 
nor  any  indirect  tax  save  such  as  could  be  justified  under  the 
customs  recognized  in  Magna  Carta.  In  1395  appeared  the 
formula  employed  to  this  day  in  the  making  of  parliamentary 
grants,  "  by  the  Commons  with  the  advice  and  assent  of  the 
Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal  " ;  and  in  1407  Henry  IV  gave 
formal  assent  to  the  principle  that  money  grants  should  be 
initiated  in  the  Commons,  agreed  to  by  the  Lords,  and  only 
thereafter  reported  to  the  king.  Likewise  legislation.  Origi- 
nally, Parliament  was  not  conceived  of  as  a  law-making  body  at 
all.  The  magnates  who  composed  the  General  Council  exercised 
the  right  to  advise  the  crown  in  legislative  matters,  and  their 
successors  in  Parliament  continued  to  do  the  same;  but  the 
commoners  who  were  brought  in  in  the  thirteenth  century  were 
present  for  fiscal,  rather  than  legislative,  purposes.  The  dis- 
tinction, however,  was  difficult  to  keep  up,  and  with  the  con- 
tinued growth  of  the  parliamentary  body  the  legislative  function 
was  eventually  recognized  as  belonging  to  the  whole  of  it. 

At  the  opening  of  the  fourteenth  century  laws  were  made, 
technically,  by  the  king  with  the  assent  of  the  magnates  at  the 
request  of  the  commoners.  The  knights  and  burgesses  were 
recognized  as  petitioners  for  laws,  rather  than  as  legislators. 
They  could  ask  for  a  new  statute,  or  for  a  clearer  definition  of 
law,  but  it  was  for  the  king  and  his  councilors  to  decide  whether 
legislation  was  required  and  what  form  it  should  assume.  Even 
when  a  measure  that  was  asked  for  was  promised,  the  intent  of 
the  Commons  was  often  frustrated ;  for  as  a  rule  the  instrument 
was  not  drawn  up  until  after  the  parliament  was  dissolved,  when, 
in  point  of  fact,  both  form  and  content  were  determined  more 
or  less  arbitrarily  by  the  crown  and  council.  A  memorable 
statute  of  1322,  in  the  reign  of  Edward  II,  stipulated  that  "  the 
matters  which  are  to  be  established  for  the  estate  of  our  lord  the 


i4  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

king  and  of  his  heirs,  aiul  for  the  estate  of  the  realm  ami  of  the 
people,  shall  be  treated,  accorded,  and  established  in  parlia 
nunts,  by  our  lord  the  king,  and  by  the  assent  of  the  prelates, 
earls,  and  barons,  and  the  commonalty  of  the  realm  ;   according 

as  it  hath  been  before  accustomed."  '  This  declaration  is  under- 
stood to  have  established,  not  only  the  essentially  legislative 
character  of  Parliament,  but  the  legislative  parity  of  the  com- 
moners with  the  magnates.  It  remained,  however,  to  substitute 
for  the  right  of  petition  the  right  of  legislating  by  bill.  Through- 
out the  fourteenth  century  Parliament,  and  especially  the  Com- 
mons, pressed  for  an  explicit  recognition  of  the  principle  that 

tatute  in  its  final  form  should  be  identical  with  the  petition 
upon  which  it  was  based.     In  i  114  Henry  V  granted  that  "  from 

forth  nothing  be  enacted  to  the  petitions  of  his  commons 
that  be  contrary  to  their  asking,  whereby  they  should  be  bound 
without  their  assent."2  This  rule,  however,  was  frequently 
violated ;  and  late  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VI  (1422-61)  a  change 
of  procedure  was  brought  about  under  which  measures  were 
henceforth  to  be  introduced  in  either  house  in  the  form  of  drafted 
bills.     Statutes  now  began  to  be  made  "  by  the  King's  most 

'lent  Majesty  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal,  and  Commons,  in  this  present 
Parliament  assembled,  and  by  the  authority  of  the  same;" 
and  every  act  of  Parliament  begins  with  these  words  today  un- 
less passed  under  the  terms  of  the  Parliament  Act  of  191 1,  in 
which  case  mention  of  the  Lords  is  omitted.  Once  merely  a 
petitioning  and  advising  body,  Parliament  had  become  a  full- 
fledged  legislative  assemblage.3 

The    Permanent    Council    and    the    Courts    of   Law.— This 
transformation  of  the  Norman   Great  Council  into  the   semi- 

1  Adams  and  Stephens,  Select  Documents,  97. 

2  Ibid.,  182.  r  „    , 

3  On  the  rise  of  Parliament  see  Stubbs,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  II, 
Chaps,  xv,  xvii;  Taylor,  Origins  and  Growth  of  the  English  Constitution,  I,  428-616; 

Smith,  History  of  the  English  Parliament  (London,  1892),  I,  Bits.  2-4;  White, 
Making  of  the  English  Constitution,  298-401;  D.  J.  Medley,  Students'  Manual  of 
English  Constitutional  History  (2d  ed.,  Oxford,  1898),  127  '.so;  Tout,  History  of 
of  Henry  III  to  the  Death  of  Edward  III.  Chaps,  v,  vi, 
x.  Valuable  biographical  treatises  are  G.  W.  Prothero,  Life  of  Simon  4e  Moulfort 
(London,  1877);    E.  I  ard  Plantagcttet  [Edw&rd  I],  the  English  Jushman 

York,  1902) ;  and  T.  F.  Tout,  Edward  the  First  (London,  1906).  The  growth 
of  parliamentary  powers  in  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries  is  briefly  but 
ibed  in  Idams,  Outline  Sketch  of  English  Constitutional  History, 
Chap,  iii.'  The developmenl  of  financial  po  -  is  traced  in  S.  A.  Morgan, 

History  of  Parliamentary  Taxation  in  England  (New  York,  ton).  See  also  A^  B. 
White,  -'Was  there  a  'Common  Council'  before  Parliament.'"  in  Amer.  Hist.  Rev., 
Oct.,  1919. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF  THE   CONSTITUTION  15 

aristocratic,  semi-popular  assemblage  known  as  Parliament 
went  far  toward  laying  the  foundations  of  the  English  govern- 
mental system  of  to-day.  A  parallel  development  was  the 
emergence,  also  from  the  Great  Council,  of  a  body  designated 
after  the  thirteenth  century  as  the  Permanent,  after  the  fifteenth 
as  the  Privy,  Council,  and  likewise  of  the  four  principal  courts  of 
law.  By  a  very  gradual  process  those  members  of  the  original 
Council  who  were  immediately  attached  to  the  court  or  to  the 
administrative  system  acquired  a  status  different  from  that  of 
their  colleagues.  The  Great  Council  met  irregularly  and  in- 
frequently. So  likewise  did  Parliament.  But  the  services  of 
the  court  and  the  business  of  government  must  go  on  continu- 
ously, and  for  the  care  of  these  things  there  grew  up  a  body  which 
at  first  formed  a  sort  of  standing  commission,  or  inner  circle, 
of  the  Council,  but  which  in  time  acquired  a  practically  independ- 
ent position  and  was  designated,  for  purposes  of  distinction,  as 
the  Permanent  Council.  The  composition  of  this  body  changed 
from  time  to  time.  Certain  functionaries  were  regularly  in- 
cluded; the  remaining  members  owed  their  places  to  special 
summons  of  the  crown.  The  new  Council's  powers  were  enor- 
mous, being  at  the  same  time  administrative,  judicial,  and 
financial,  and  the  mass  of  business  to  which  it  was  required  to 
give  attention  steadily  grew. 

Three  things  resulted.  In  the  first  place,  the  Permanent 
Council  became,  in  practice,  completely  detached  from  the  older 
and  larger  body.  In  the  second  place,  to  facilitate  its  work 
trained  lawyers,  expert  financiers,  and  other  men  of  special 
aptitudes  —  men,  often,  who  were  mere  commoners  —  were 
introduced  into  it.  Finally,  there  split  off  from  the  body  a 
succession  of  committees,  to  each  of  which  was  assigned  a  par- 
ticular branch  of  administrative  or  judicial  business.  In  this 
manner  arose  the  four  great  courts  of  law :  (1)  the  Court  of  Ex- 
chequer, which  was  given  jurisdiction  over  all  fiscal  causes  in 
which  the  crown  was  directly  concerned ;  (2)  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas,  with  jurisdiction  over  civil  cases  between  sub- 
ject and  subject ;  (3)  the  Court  of  King's  Bench,  presided  over 
nominally  by  the  king  himself  and  taking  cognizance  of  a  variety 
of  cases  for  which  other  provision  was  not  made;  and  (4)  the 
Court  of  Chancery,  which,  under  the  presidency  of  the  Chan- 
cellor, heard  and  decided  cases  involving  the  principles  of  equity. 
The  creation  of  these  tribunals,  beginning  in  the  early  twelfth 
century,  was  completed  by  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth.  Tech- 
nically, all  were  coordinate  courts,  from  which  appeal  lay  to  the 


[6  <;<>\  ERNMEN  is  OF   EUROP1 

King  in  Council;  and  there  arc  still,  as  will  be  pointed  out, 
certain  survivals  of  the  judicial  prerogative  which  the  Council 
as  a  whole  thus  retained.  By  the  time  of  Henry  VI  the  enlarge- 
ment of  membership  and  the  specialization  of  functions  of  the 
Permanent  Council  had  gone  so  far  that  this  group,  too,  had 
entirely  ceased  to  be  a  working  body.  Ultimately,  what  hap- 
pened was  that,  precisely  as  the  Permanent  Council  had  been 
derived  by  selection  from  the  original  Great  Council,  so  from 
the  overgrown  Permanent  Council  was  segregated,  in  the  fifteenth 
century,  a  smaller  and  more  compact  administrative  body  known 
to  historians  as  the  "  Privy  Council."  '  By  curious  repetition, 
when,  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  this  Privy 
Council  became  too  large  for  practical  use,  an  inner  circle  was, 
in  turn,  detached  from  it  and,  under  the  name  of  the  Cabinet, 
was  put  in  the  way  of  becoming  the  working  executive  of  the 
realm.2 

1  See  Stuhbs,  Constitutional  History,  II,  Chap,  xiii;  White,  Making  of  the  English 
Constitution,  123-251;  Adams,  Origin  of  the  English  Constitution,  136-143;  \Y.  S. 
Holdsworth,  History  of  English  Law  (London,  1903-09),  I,  1-169;  J.  F.  Baldwin, 
The  Kings  Council  in  England  during  tin-  Middle  Ages  (New  York,  1913) ;  A.  P. 
Poley,  "Development  of  the  Privy  Council,"  in  Britan.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1916. 

2  See  p.  93. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  CONSTITUTION  IN  RECONSTRUCTION,   1485-1689 

The  Tudor  Monarchy.  —  The  salient  fact  of  the  Tudor  period 
of  English  history  (1485-1603)  is  the  vigor  and  dominance  of  the 
monarchy.  From  the  long  and  dreary  Wars  of  the  Roses  the 
nation  emerged  in  need,  above  all  else,  of  discipline  and  repose. 
It  was  the  part  of  the  Tudors  relentlessly  to  enforce  the  one 
and  systematically  to  foster  the  other.  The  period  was  one 
in  which  aristocratic  turbulence  was  repressed,  extraordinary 
tribunals  were  erected  to  bring  to  justice  powerful  offenders, 
vagrancy  was  punished,  labor  was  found  for  the  unemployed, 
trade  was  stimulated,  the  navy  was  organized  on  a  permanent 
basis,  the  diffusion  of  wealth  and  of  education  was  encouraged, 
the  growth  of  a  strong  middle  class  was  promoted  —  in  short, 
one  in  which  out  of  chaos  was  brought  order  and  out  of  weakness 
strength.  These  things  were  the  work  of  a  government  which 
was  frankly  paternal,  even  boldly  despotic,  and  for  a  time 
the  evolution  of  parliamentary  institutions  was  arrested.  But 
it  should  be  observed  that  the  question  in  sixteenth-century 
England  was  not  between  strong  monarchy  on  the  one  hand  and 
parliamentary  government  on  the  other.  The  alternatives 
were,  rather,  strong  monarchy  and  baronial  anarchy.  This  the 
nation  clearly  perceived,  and,  of  the  two,  it  preferred  the  former. 

"  The  Tudor  monarchy,"  says  an  English  scholar,  "  unlike 
most  other  despotisms,  did  not  depend  on  gold  or  force,  on  the 
possession  of  vast  estates,  unlimited  taxation,  or  a  standing 
army.  It  rested  on  the  willing  support  of  the  nation  at  large,  a 
support  due  to  the  deeply  rooted  conviction  that  a  strong  ex- 
ecutive was  necessary  to  the  national  unity,  and  that,  in  the  face 
of  the  dangers  which  threatened  the  country  both  at  home  and 
abroad,  the  sovereign  must  be  allowed  a  free  hand.  It  was  this 
conviction,  instinctively  felt  rather  than  definitely  realized,  which 
enabled  Henry  VIII  not  only  to  crush  open  rebellion  but  to 
punish  the  slightest  signs  of  opposition  to  his  will,  to  regulate 
the  consciences  of  his  subjects,  and  to  extend  the  legal  conception 
c  17 


is  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

of  treason  to  Limits  hitherto  unknown.     It  was  this  which  ren- 
dered it  possible  for  the  ministers  of  Edward  VI  to  imp 

Protestant  regime  upon  a  Romanist  majority,  and  allowed  Man- 
to  enter  upon  a  hateful  marriage  and  to  drag  the  country  into  a 
disastrous  war.  It  was  this,  finally,  which  enabled  Elizabeth 
to  choose  her  own  line  in  domestic  and  foreign  policy,  to  defer 
for  thirty  years  the  war  with  Spain,  and  to  resist,  almost  single- 
handed,  the  pressure  for  further  ecclesiastical  change.  The 
Tudor  monarchy  was  essentially  a  national  monarchy.  It  was 
popular  with  the  multitude,  and  it  was  actively  supported  by 
the  influential  classes,  the  nobility,  the  gentry,  the  lawyers,  the 
merchants,  who  sat  as  members  of  Parliament  at  Westminster, 
mustered  the  forces  of  the  shire  as  Lords-Lieutenant,  or  bore  the 
burden  of  local  government  as  borough  magistrates  and  jii 
of  the  peace."  x 

Government  by  Council.  —  The  times  of  the  Tudors  and  of 
the  early  Stuarts  have  been  aptly  designated  the  period  of 
"  government  by  council."  Parliament  continued  to  exercise  a 
certain  control  over  legislation  and  taxation,  but  it  was  in  and 
through  the  Privy  Council,  together  with  certain  subordinate 
councils,  that  the  absolute  monarchy  in  the  main  performed  its 
work.  The  Privy  Council  — ■  or  simply  "  the  Council  "  — 
ordinarily  included  seventeen  or  eighteen  persons,  although 
under  Henry  VIII  its  membership  approached  forty.  The 
councilors  were  usually  members  of  Parliament,  and  this  made 
easier  the  control  of  the  proceedings  of  that  body  by  the  govern- 
ment, without  as  yet  involving  any  admitted  responsibility  of 
the  executive  to  the  legislative  branch.  After  Mary's  reign  the 
councilors  were,  with  few  exceptions,  laymen.  Technically,  the 
function  of  the  Council  was  only  to  give  advice.  But  in  practice, 
even  those  sovereigns,  notably  Henry  VHI  and  Elizabeth,  who 
were  most  vigilant  and  industrious,  were  obliged  to  allow  the 
councilors  large  discretion  in  the  conduct  of  public  business, 
and  under  the  early  Stuarts  the  Council  practically  ruled  the 
realm.  It  supervised  administration,  regulated  trade,  granted 
licenses,  controlled  the  press,  kept  an  eye  on  the  law  courts, 
ferreted  out  plots,  suppressed  rebellion,  controlled  the  move- 
ments of  the  fleet,  assisted  in  the  management  of  ecclesiastical 
affairs,  and,  in  short,  discussed,  and  took  action  on,  substantially 
all  concerns  of  state.  Its  right  to  issue  ordinances  in  the  name  of 
the  crown  made  it  practically  a  legislative  body ;  through  regu- 

1  G.  W.  Prothero,  Select  Statutes  and  other  Constitutional  Documents  Illustrative 
of  the  Reigns  of  Elizabeth  and  James  I  (Oxford,  1898),  xvii-xviii. 


CONSTITUTION  IN  RECONSTRUCTION,    1485-1689     19 

lation  of  trade,  management  of  loans  and  "  benevolences,"  and 
definition  of  military  obligations,  it  wielded  large  control  over 
taxation;  sitting  with  the  king,  it  was  a  high  court,  whose 
jurisdiction,  partly  original  and  partly  appellate,  was  extensive 
and  peculiarly  despotic.1 

In  1487  Parliament  authorized  Henry  VII  to  create  a  special 
tribunal,  consisting  at  the  outset  of  seven  great  officials  and 
members  of  the  Council,  including  two  judges,  to  take  cognizance 
of  cases  involving  breaches  of  the  law  by  offenders  who  were 
too  powerful  to  be  reached  through  the  ordinary  courts.  This 
was  the  tribunal  subsequently  known,  from  its  meeting-place, 
as  the  Court  of  Star  Chamber.  In  effect  it  was  from  the  be- 
ginning a  committee  of  the  Privy  Council,  empowered  to  exercise 
a  jurisdiction  which  in  truth  had  long  been  exercised  extra- 
legally  by  the  Council  as  a  whole.  The  relation  of  the  two 
institutions  became  steadily  closer,  and  by  the  middle  of  the 
sixteenth  century  the  Star  Chamber  was  enlarged  to  include  all 
of  the  members  of  the  Council,  together  with  the  two  chief 
justices;  and  since  the  Star  Chamber  was  endowed  with  a 
statutory  sanction  which  the  Council  lacked,  the  judicial  busi- 
ness of  the  older  body  was  regularly  dispatched  by  its  members 
sitting  in  the  guise  of  the  newer  one.  The  tendency  of  the 
Tudor  regime  toward  the  conciliar  type  of  government  was 
farther  manifested  by  the  creation  of  numerous  subsidiary  coun- 
cils and  courts  whose  history  cannot  be  recounted  here.  The 
best  known  of  them  was  the  Elizabethan  Court  of  High  Com- 
mission.2 

Parliamentary  Control  Evaded.  —  In  the  eyes  of  the  Tudor 
monarchs,  especially  Henry  VIII  and  Elizabeth,  Parliament 
was  a  tool  to  be  used  by  the  crown  rather  than  an  independent, 
coordinate  power  in  the  state.  When  more  or  less  unpopular 
changes  were  to  be  carried  through,  such  as  the  breach  with  the 
papacy  under  Henry  VIII,  it  was  Tudor  policy  to  have  them 
made  in  the  guise  of  parliamentary  enactments,  to  the  end  that 
they  might  be  given  the  appearance  and  sanction  of  great  national 
measures ;  and  when  larger  supplies  of  money  were  to  be  obtained 
it  was  recognized  to  be  good  policy  to  make  them,  in  similar 
manner,  seem  to  be  the  voluntary  gifts  of  the  people.     It  was  no 

1  Prothero,  Statutes  and  Constitutional  Documents,  cii.  See  A.  V.  Dicey,  The 
Privy  Council  (London,  1887),  and  E.  Percy,  The  Privy  Council  under  the  Tudor s 
(Oxford,  1907). 

2  A.  T.  Carter,  Outlines  of  English  Legal  History  (London,  1899),  Chap,  xii; 
A.  Todd,  Parliamentary  Government  in  England,  ed.  by  S.  Walpole  (London, 
1892),  I,  Chap,  ii;  Dicey,  Privy  Council,  94-115. 


20  GOVERNMENTS  OE   EUROPE 

part  of  the  Tudor  plan,  however,  thai  Parliamenl  should  be 
permitted  to  initiate  measures  or  even  to  exercise  any  actual 
discretion  in  the  adoption,  amendment,  or  rejection  of  proposal  ■ 

submitted  by  the  kings;  and  the  means  employed  l«>  keep  the 
bod)  in  a  purely  subordinate  position  were  many  and  ingenious. 
One  was  the  practice  of  convening  the  houses  irregularly  and 
infrequently,  and  of  restricting  their  sessions  to  very  brief 
periods.  Another  was  tampering  with  the  freedom  of  county 
and  borough  elections.  A  third  was  directing,  in  the' most  dicta- 
torial manner,  the  organization  and  proceedings  of  the  chambers. 
Henry  VIII  bullied  his  parliaments  shamelessly;  Elizabeth,  by 
cajolery,  flattery,  deceit,  and  other  arts  of  which  she  was  mis- 
tress, attained,  through  less  boisterous  methods,  the  same  general 
end.  Measures  were  thrust  upon  the  chambers  with  peremptory 
demand  for  their  enactment;  projects  originated  by  private 
members  were  stifled  ;  and  the  privileges  of  free  speech,  immunity 
from  arrest,  and  access  to  the  sovereign  were  arbitrarily  sus- 
pended or  otherwise  flagrantly  violated. 

Finally,  there  were  well-known  and  oft-used  devices  by  which 
the  crown  could  entirely  evade  the  limitations  theoretically 
imposed  by  parliamentary  authority.  One  of  these  was  "  procla- 
mations.'' In  the  sixteenth  century  it  was  generally  maintained 
in  royal  circles  that  the  sovereign,  acting  alone  or  with  the  advice 
of  the  Council,  could  issue  proclamations  with  the  full  force  of 
law  and  affecting  the  most  sacred  liberties  of  the  people  so  long 
as  such  edicts  did  not  violate  statute  or  common  law.  As  a 
corollary,  it  was  equally  maintained  that  the  crown  could  sus- 
pend or  dispense  with  the  laws  in  individual  cases  and  at  times 
of  crisis.  The  range  covered  by  these  prerogatives  was  broad 
and  undefined,  and  in  the  hands  of  an  aggressive  monarch  they 
constituted  a  serious  invasion  of  the  powers  of  legislation  nomi- 
nally vested  in  Parliament.  Still  another  aid  to  escape  from 
parliamentary  control  was  the  relative  independence  of  the  king 
financially,  arising  from  the  numerous  sources  of  revenue  over 
which  Parliament  had  as  yet  no  control,  and  also  from  the  fact 
that  the  customs  duties  and  other  indirect  taxes  were  still  voted 
at  the  accession  of  a  sovereign  for  the  whole  of  the  reign. 

Parliament  in  1485.  —  Notwithstanding  these  facts,  Parlia- 
ment in  the  Tudor  period  by  no  means  stood  still.  The  spirit 
of  independence  and  the  evidences  of  power  displayed  by  the 
chambers,  especially  the  House  of  Commons,  in  the  seventeenth 
century  were  the  product  of  substantial,  if  more  or  less  hidden, 
growth  during  the  previous  one  hundred  and  fifty  years.     The 


CONSTITUTION  IN  RECONSTRUCTION,   1485-1689     21 

composition  of  the  two  houses  at  the  accession  of  Henry  VII  was 
not  clearly  defined.  The  House  of  Lords  was  only  a  small  body. 
It  included  simply  those  lords,  temporal  and  spiritual,  who 
were  entitled  to  receive  from  the  king,  when  a  parliament  was 
to  be  held,  a  special  writ,  i.e.,  an  individual  summons.  The 
number  of  these  was  indeterminate.  The  right  of  the  archbishops, 
the  bishops,  and  the  abbots  to  be  summoned  was  immemorial 
and  indisputable,  although  the  abbots  usually  evaded  attendance, 
save  in  cases  in  which  it  could  be  shown  that  as  military  tenants 
of  the  crown  they  were  obligated  to  perform  parliamentary  duty. 
The  selection  of  individuals  for  summons  among  the  lay  nobility 
seems  originally  to  have  been  dependent  upon  the  royal  pleasure. 
Eventually,  however,  the  principle  became  fixed  that  a  man 
once  summoned  must  always  be  summoned,  and  that,  further- 
more, his  eldest  son  after  him  must  be  summoned.  What  was 
at  the  outset  a  burdensome  obligation  became  a  privilege  and 
a  distinction,  and  by  the  time  when  it  did  so  the  rule  was  recog- 
nized that  the  king  could  not  withhold  a  writ  of  summons  from 
the  heir  of  a  person  who  had  been  once  summoned  and  had 
obeyed  the  summons  by  taking  his  seat.  During  the  fourteenth 
century  the  membership  of  the  chamber  fluctuated  around  150. 
In  the  fifteenth  century  it  was  smaller ;  the  temporal  lords 
summoned  to  the  first  parliament  of  Henry  VII  numbered  but  20. 
The  House  of  Commons  at  the  beginning  of  the  Tudor  period 
was  a  body  of  some  300  members.  It  contained  74  knights  of 
the  shire,  representing  all  but  three  of  the  forty  English  counties, 
together  with  a  shifting  quota  of  representatives  of  cities  and 
boroughs.  In  the  Model  Parliament  of  1295,  166  urban  districts 
were  represented ;  but  as  time  went  on  the  number  declined, 
partly  because  fewer  boroughs  were  invited  to  send  representa- 
tives, and  partly  because  when  representation  did  not  appear  to 
yield  tangible  benefits  the  taxpayers,  begrudging  the  two  shil- 
lings a  day  paid  their  representatives,  in  some  cases  entirely 
abandoned  the  sending  of  members.  At  the  opening  of  the 
fifteenth  century,  county  members  were  elected  by  the  body  of 
freeholders  present  at  the  county  court.  But  by  statute  of 
1429  the  electoral  privilege  was  restricted  to  freeholders  resident 
in  the  county  and  holding  land  of  the  yearly  rental  value  of 
forty  shillings,  which  was  equivalent,  perhaps,  to  £30  or  £40 
in  present  values.  This  rule,  adopted  originally  with  the  ex- 
press purpose  of  disfranchising  "  the  very  great  and  outrageous 
number  of  people  either  of  small  substance  or  of  no  value  "  who 
had  been  claiming  electoral  equality  with  the  "  worthy  knights 


22  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

and  s(|iiir<  adhered  to  until  [832.1     The  electoral  systems 

in  the  boroughs  were  utterly  heterogeneous,  and  at  no  time 
before  1832  was  a  real  effort  rtiade  to  bring  them  into  uniformity. 
In  some  places  (the  so-tailed  "scot  and  lot"  boroughs)  the 
suffrage  was  exercised  by  all  rate-payers;  in  others,  by  the 
holders  of  particular  tenements  ("burgage"  franchise);  in 
others  (the  "  potwalloper  "  boroughs),  by  all  citizens  who  had 
hearths  of  their  own;  in  still  others,  by  the  municipal  corpora- 
tion, or  by  the  members  of  a  gild,  or  even  by  neighboring  land- 
holders. 

Parliamentary  Development  under  the  Tudors. — During 
the  Tudor  period  the  composition  of  the  two  chambers  under- 
went important  change.  In  the  House  of  Lords  the  principal 
development  was  the  substitution  of  temporal  for  spiritual 
preponderance.  This  was  brought  about  in  two  ways:  (1)  the 
increase  of  the  hereditary  peers  from  thirty-six  at  the  beginning 
of  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII  to  about  eighty  at  the  accession  of 
James  I,  and  (2)  the  withdrawal  of  twenty-eight  abbots,  in- 
cident to  the  closing  of  the  monasteries  by  Henry  VIII,  and 
only  partially  compensated  by  the  creation  at  the  time  of  six 
new  bishoprics.  In  1509  the  number  of  lords  spiritual  was 
forty-eight;    in  1603,  it  was  only  twenty-six. 

Under  the  Tudors  the  membership  of  the  House  of  Commons 
was  practically  doubled.  The  legislative  union  with  Wales  in 
1535  brought  in  twenty- three  new  members.  In  1536  and  1543 
the  counties  of  Monmouth  and  Chester  were  admitted  to  repre- 
sentation. Several  boroughs  were  newly  enfranchised,  and  by 
the  end  of  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII  representatives  of  counties 
had  been  increased  from  74  to  go,  and  delegates  of  boroughs  had 
been  brought  up  to  252,  giving  the  House  an  aggregate  member- 
ship of  342.  During  the  reign  of  Edward  VI  forty-eight  new 
members  were  added;  during  that  of  Mary,  twenty-one.  But 
the  most  notable  increase  took  place  under  Elizabeth,  with  the 
net  result  of  bringing  in  62  new  borough  representatives,  in 
some  cases  from  boroughs  which  now  acquired  the  right  of 
representation  for  the  first  time,  in  others  from  boroughs  which 
once  had  possessed  the  right  but  had  forfeited  it  through  disuse. 
The  total  increase  of  the  membership  of  the  lower  house  during 
the  Tudor  period  was  166.  In  some  instances  parliamentary 
representation  was  extended  with  the  specific  purpose  of  in- 
fluencing the  political  complexion  of  the  popular  chamber. 
But,  on  the  whole,  the  reason  for  this  notable  increase  is  to  be 

1  Sec  p.  T20. 


CONSTITUTION   IN   RECONSTRUCTION,    1485-1689     23 

found  in  the  growing  prosperity  of  the  country  and  in  the  habitual 
reliance  of  the  Tudors  upon  the  commercial  and  industrial 
classes  of  the  population.  This  accounts  especially  for  the  in- 
crease of  borough  representation. 

A  second  point  at  which  Parliament  underwent  important 
change  in  the  Tudor  era  was  in  respect  to  the  frequency  and 
duration  of  sessions.1  Prior  to  Henry  VIII,  the  life  of  a  parlia- 
ment was  confined,  as  a  rule,  to  a  single  session,  and  sessions  were 
brief.  But  parliaments  now  ceased  to  be  meetings  to  be  broken 
up  as  soon  as  some  specific  piece  of  business  had  been  com- 
pleted, and  many  were  brought  together  in  several  sessions. 
Henry  VIII's  Reformation  Parliament  lasted  seven  years.  Dur- 
ing the  forty-five  years  of  Elizabeth  there  were  ten  parliaments 
and  thirteen  sessions.  One  of  these  parliaments  lasted  eleven 
years,  although  it  met  but  three  times.  It  is  true  that  the 
parliaments  of  Elizabeth  were  in  session,  in  the  aggregate,  some- 
what less  than  three  years,  an  average  for  the  reign  of  but  little 
more  than  three  weeks  a  year.  But  the  point  is  that  Parliament 
as  an  institution  was  gaining  a  recognized  position  in  the  political 
system  of  the  nation.  A  book  entitled  De  Republica  Anglorum; 
the  Mancr  of  Government  or  Policie  of  the  Realme  of  England, 
posthumously  published,  set  forth  in  1583  the  legal  supremacy 
of  Parliament  in  words  to  whose  clearness  and  accuracy  nothing 
can  be  added  to-day :  "All  that  ever  the  people  of  Rome  might 
do,  either  Centuriatis  Com  Hi  is  or  Tributis,  the  same  may  be  done 
by  the  Parliament  of  England,  which  representeth  and  hath 
the  whole  power  of  the  realm,  both  the  head  and  body.  For 
every  Englishman  is  intended  to  be  there  present,  either  in 
person  or  by  procuration  and  attorney,  of  what  preeminence, 
state,  dignity,  or  quality  soever  he  be,  from  the  prince  (be  he 
King  or  Queen)  to  the  lowest  person  of  England,  and  the  consent 
of  the  Parliament  is  taken  to  be  every  man's  consent."  2  There 
is  no  record  that  the  enunciation  of  this  doctrine,  even  by  a  court 
official,  roused  serious  protest  or  difference  of  opinion.  It  was 
in  the  Tudor  period,  furthermore,  that  both  houses  started  to 
keep  journals,  and  that  committees  and  numerous  other  features 
of  modern  parliamentary  procedure  had  their  beginnings.3 

1  See  J.  G.  Randall,  "Frequency  and  Duration  of  Parliaments,"  in  Amer. 
Polit.  Sci.  Rev.,  Nov.,  1016. 

2  F.  Pollock,  First  Book  of  Jurisprudence  (London,  1S96),  247.  The  author 
quoted  is  Sir  Thomas  Smith,  a  diplomat  and  court  secretary,  who  died  in  1577. 
There  is  a  convenient  edition  of  the  book  by  L.  Alston  (Cambridge,  1906). 

3  Excellent  works  of  a  general  nature  on  the  Tudor  period  are  H.  A.  L.  Fisher, 
History  of  England  from  the  Accession  of  Henry  VII  to  the  Death  of  Henry   VIII 


24  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

The  Stuarts  and  the  Divine  Right  of  Kings.  —  In  the  period 
which  included  the  reigns  of  the  lour  kings  of  the  Stuart  dynasty 
(1603-88)  the  gnat  issue  of  autocracy  versus  constitutional 
government  came  finally  to  a  head.  The  doctrine  upon  which 
the  Stuarts  based  their  rule  was  the  divine  right  of  kings  —  a 
doctrine  which  James  I  himself,  shortly  before  his  accession, 
expounded  and  defended  in  a  pedantic  treatise  entitled  The 
Treu  Lawe  of  Free  Monarchies  The  sovereign,  so  ran  the  argu- 
ment, rules  by  the  will  of  God;  his  subjects  have  no  recourse 
against  him;  if  tyranny  be  a  menace,  anarchy  is  yet  more  to 
be  feared;  then-  is  no  appeal  againsl  tyranny  save  to  God. 
"  Monarchy,"  declared  the  same  king  in  a  speech  before  Parlia- 
ment in  1610,  "  is  the  supremest  thing  upon  earth Vs 

to  dispute  what  God  may  do  is  blasphemy,  ...  so  is  it  sedition 
in  subjects  to  dispute  what  a  king  may  do  in  the  height  of  his 
power."  -  Doctrine  of  this  sort  was  by  no  means  new  in  bug- 
land.  James'  conception  of  the  royal  prerogative  was  essentially 
that  which  had  been  lodged  in  the  mind  of  every  Tudor,  and  of 
many  an  earlier  monarch;  he  and  his  son,  Charles  I,  expected 
to  maintain  the  same  measure  of  absolutism  which  Henry  VIII 
and  Elizabeth  had  maintained  —  nothing  more,  nothing  less. 

There  were  several  reasons  why  such  a  purpose  could  not  be 
realized.  The  first  was  the  pig-headedness  of  the  rulers  them- 
selves. Views  which  no  Tudor  would  have  been  tactless  enough 
to  avow  were  proclaimed  by  the  Stuarts  from  the  housetops. 
The  Stuart  bluntness,  lack  of  perception  of  the  public  will,  and 
habit  of  insisting  on  the  minutest  definitions  of  prerogative 
would  have  alienated  seventeenth-century  Englishmen  under 
even  the  most  favorable  circumstances.  A  second  consideration 
is  the  fact,  of  which  the  nation  was  fully  cognizant,  that  under 

(London,  1906);   A.  F.  Pollard,  History  of  England  from  the  Accession  of  I 

VI  to  the  Death  of  Elisabeth  (London,  1010);  and  A.  D.  Innis,  England  under  the 

Tudors  (London,  1905).  For  institutional  history  see  Taylor,  English  Constitu- 
tion, II,  Bk.  4.  More  specialized  treatment  will  be  found  in  Smith,  History  of  the 
English  Parliament,  I,  Bk.  5;  Dicey,  The  Privy  Council,  76-130;  and  Taswell- 
Langmead,  English  Constitutional!  Hi  ips.  \,  -.ii.     An  excellent  survey  of 

English  public  law  at  the  death  of  Henry  \  II  is  contained  in  F.  \Y.  Maitland, 
Constitutional  History  of  England  (Cambridge,  [909),  165-236.  Books  of  large 
value  on  the  period  include  W.  Busch,  England  .  trans.  l>y  A.  M. 

Todd  (London,  1895),  the  only  volume  of  which  published  covers  the  reign  of 
Henry  VII;  A.  F.  Pollard,  Henry  VIII  (London,  1902),  and  England  under  the. 
Proteelor  Somerset  (London,  1900) ;  and  M.  Creighton,  Queen  Elizabeth  (new  ed., 
London.  1S99). 

1  ('.  Mcllwain,  Political  Writings  of  Jan  '  imbri  J.  N. 
Figgis,  The  Theory  of  tl  ind  II.J.  Laski, 
'The  Political  Ideas  of  James  I,"  in  Polit.  Sci.  Quar.,  June,  1919. 

2  Prothero,  Statutes  and  Constitutional  Documents,  293-304. 


CONSTITUTION   IN   RECONSTRUCTION,    1485-1689     25 

the  changed  conditions  that  had  arisen  there  was  no  longer  any 
real  need  of  strong  monarchy.  Law  and  order  had  long  since 
been  secured  ;  all  danger  of  a  feudal  reaction  had  been  removed ; 
foreign  invasion  was  no  more  to  be  feared.  Strong  monarchy 
had  served  a  good  purpose,  but  that  purpose  had  been  fulfilled. 

A  third  factor  in  the  situation  was  the  long  obscured,  but  now 
obvious  and  rapid,  growth  of  Parliament  as  an  organ  of  the 
public  will.  In  a  remarkable  document  known  as  The  Apology 
of  the  Commons,  under  date  of  June  20,  1604,  the  popular  chamber 
stated  respectfully  but  frankly  to  the  new  sovereign  what  it 
considered  to  be  its  rights  and,  through  it,  the  rights  of  the 
nation.  "  What  cause  we  your  poor  Commons  have,"  runs  the 
address,  "  to  watch  over  our  privileges,  is  manifest  in  itself  to 
all  men.  The  prerogatives  of  princes  may  easily,  and  do  daily, 
grow ;  the  privileges  of  the  subject  are  for  the  most  part  at  an 
everlasting  stand.  They  may  be  by  good  providence  and  care 
preserved,  but  being  once  lost  are  not  recovered  but  with  much 
disquiet.  The  rights  and  liberties  of  the  Commons  of  England 
consisteth  chiefly  in  these  three  things :  first,  that  the  shires, 
cities,  and  boroughs  of  England,  by  representation  to  be  present, 
have  free  choice  of  such  persons  as  they  shall  put  in  trust  to 
represent  them ;  secondly,  that  the  persons  chosen,  during  the 
time  of  the  Parliament,  as  also  of  their  access  and  recess,  be  free 
from  restraint,  arrest,  and  imprisonment ;  thirdly,  that  in  Parlia- 
ment they  may  speak  freely  their  consciences  without  check 
and  controlment,  doing  the  same  with  due  reverence  to  the 
sovereign  court  of  Parliament,  that  is,  to  your  Majesty  and  both 
the  Houses,  who  all  in  this  case  make  but  one  politic  body, 
whereof  your  Highness  is  the  head."  l  The  shrewdness  of  the 
political  philosophy  with  which  this  passage  opens  is  matched 
only  by  the  terseness  with  which  the  fundamental  rights  of  the 
Commons  as  a  body  are  enumerated.  '  Equally  significant  is  a 
paragraph  contained  in  a  petition  of  the  Commons,  May  23, 
1610,  which  reads  as  follows:  "  We  hold  it  an  ancient,  general, 
and  undoubted  right  of  Parliament  to  debate  freely  all  matters 
which  do  properly  concern  the  subject  and  his  right  or  state ; 
which  freedom  of  debate  being  once  foreclosed,  the  essence  of 
the  liberty  of  Parliament  is  withal  dissolved."  2 

Doctrines  of  the  Parliamentary  Party.  —  Finally,  and  most 
important,  the  Stuart  doctrine  ran  counter  to  the  whole  con- 

1  Petyt,  Jus  Parliamenlarium  (London,  1739),  227-243.     Portions  of  this  docu- 
ment are  printed  in  Prothero,  Statutes  and  Constitutional  Documents,  286-293. 

2  Commons'  Journals,  I,  431 ;    Prothero,  Statutes  and  Constitutional  Documents^ 
297.     See  Maitland,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  240-245. 


26  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

temporary  tendency  in  the  development  of  English  political 
thought.  The  first  principle  that  ii  violated  was  that  the  king, 
while  subject  to  no  man,  was  always  subjei  I  to  law.  As  early 
as  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries  two  great  legal  writers, 
Glanvil  and  B]  both  connected  with  the  royal  courts 

flatly  denied  that  the  will  of  the  monarch  should  have  the  force 
of  law.  Laic  in  tec  fifteenth  century  Sir  John  Fortcscuc,  in  a 
treatise  entitled  J)c  Laudibus  Legum  Angliae  ("  On  the  Ex- 
cellence of  the  Laws  of  England  "),  although  himself  the  titular 
chancellor  of  Henry  VI,  took  as  his  main  theme  the  advanl 
of  a  system  of  government,  such  as  the  English,  under  which 
the  king  can  make  lav,'  and  lay  taxes  only  with  the  consent  of 
the  three  estates  of  the  realm,  and  in  which  the  judges  arc  sworn 
to  act  according  to  the  law  of  the  land  even  though  the  king  com- 
mand to  the  contrary.  In  the  Roman  system,  Fortescue  points 
out,  it  is  the  will  of  the  prince  that  makes  law,  while  in  the 
English  the  will  of  the  prince  is  but  a  single  and  subordinate 
element.  Although  the  despotism  of  Tudor  days  made  this 
doctrine  seem  obsolete,  it  never  died  out,  and  in  the  reign  of 
James  I  it  was  brought  into  fresh  vigor  by  the  great  jurist  Coke, 
who  from  the  bench  rcenforced  the  rising  claims  of  Parliament 
by  asserting  the  eternal  supremacy  of  law  and  denying  all  claims 
set  up  by  the  king  to  immunity  therefrom.1 

A  corollary  of  this  great  common  law  principle  was  that  law 
had  its  proper  source  in  the  people,  as  represented  in  Parlia- 
ment. Throughout  the  tremendous  controversies  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  the  parliamentary  party  steadfastly  contended 
for  recognition  of  this  doctrine,  and  with  such  success  that 
after  the  Revolution  of  1 688-89  tne  principle  became,  for  all 
practical  purposes,  axiomatic.  A  final  tendency  in  parlia- 
mentary doctrine  that  may  be  mentioned  was  increased  em- 
phasis upon  the  rights  of  men  as  individuals.  Hitherto  the 
"people"  had  usually  been  conceived  of  rather  as  groups  or 
associations  —  estate.-,  orders,  crafts,  corporations  —  rather  than 
as  individuals,  and  rights  had  been  claimed  for  them  in  their 
collective  capacities;  now  the  individual  becomes  detached 
from  his  group,  and  entitled,  as  a  man,  to  his  "  natural  *'  rights. 
"  In  the  Petition  of  Right  (1628),  which  marked  the  end  of  the 
first  stage  in  Parliament'-  progress  to  victory,  the  specific  priv- 
ileges which  the  king  recognized  were:  exemption  from  certain 
forms  of  taxes  save  when  imposed  by  act  of  Parliament;     the 

1  On  Fortescue's  political  writings  see  W.  A.  Dunning,  Political  Theories  from 
Luther  to  Montesquieu  (New  Yurk,  1905),  201-205. 


CONSTITUTION  IN  RECONSTRUCTION,    1485-1689     27 

right  to  learn,  through  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  the  cause  of 
imprisonment  or  detention  by  royal  order ;    exemption  from  the 
quartering  of  soldiers  and  from  the  processes  of  martial  law. 
During  the  period  in  which  the  king  ruled  without  Parliament 
(1629-40)  various  additions  to  and  modifications  of  these  legal 
rights  were  asserted  and  tested  in  the  courts,  and  the  custom 
developed  of  summarizing  the  rights  concerned  under  the  head 
of  *  person  and  estate,'  or  '  person  and  property.'     These  were 
described  as   the   fundamental  liberties  of   the  kingdom,   and 
during  the  final  conflict  which  ended  in  the  overthrow  and  death 
of  the  king  the  formula  assumed  substantially  the  shape  that 
remained  familiar  for  centuries  —  '  life,  liberty,  and  property.'  "  l 
Monarchy  Abolished :    Commonwealth  and   Protectorate.  — 
Between  the  political  theory  of  the  Stuart  kings  and  that  of 
the  parliamentary  party  there  could  be  no  compromise.     The 
Civil  War  was  waged,  in  the  last  analysis,  to  determine  which 
of  the  two  theories  should  prevail.     It  should  be  emphasized 
that  the  parliamentarians  entered  upon  the  contest  with  no 
intent  to  establish  a  government  by  Parliament  alone,  in  form 
or  in  fact.     It  is  sufficiently  clear  from  the  Grand  Remonstrance 
of  1641  2  that  what  they  had  in  mind  was  merely  to  impose 
constitutional  restrictions  upon  the  crown,  aside  from  making 
certain  specific  changes  in  the  political  and  ecclesiastical  order, 
e.g.,    the   abolition   of    episcopacy.      The    culmination   of    the 
struggle,  however,  in  the  defeat  and  execution  of  the  king  threw 
open  the  doors  for  every  sort  of  constitutional  innovation,  and 
between  1649  and  1660  the  nation  was  called  upon  to  pass  through 
an  era  of  political  experimentation  happily  unparalleled  in  its 
history.     On  May  19,  1649,  kingship  and  the  House  of  Lords 
having  been  abolished  as  equally  "  useless  and  dangerous,"  3 
Parliament,  to  complete  the  work  of  transformation,  proclaimed 
a  commonwealth,  or  republic  ;  and  on  the  great  seal  was  inscribed 
the  legend,   "  In  the  first  year  of  freedom  by  God's  blessing 
restored."     During  the  period  of  the  Commonwealth  (1649-54) 
various  plans  were  brought  forward  for  the  creation  of  a  parlia- 
ment elected  by  manhood  suffrage.4     But  the  scheme  met  with 
the  favor  of  neither  the  leaders  nor  the  people  at  large.     In 
1653  a  constitution  was  adopted  —  the  first  written  constitution 
to  be  put  into  operation  in  modern  Europe  —  known  as  the 

1  Dunning,  Political  Theories  from  Luther  to  Montesquieu,  22. 

2  S.  R.  Gardiner,  Constitutional  Documents  of  the  Puritan  Revolution  (Oxford, 
1899),  202-232. 

3  Gardiner,  Ibid.,  384-388;    Adams  and  Stephens,  Select  Documents,  397-400. 

4  See  especially  T.  C.  Pease,  The  Leveller  Movement  (Washington,  19 16). 


28  <;o\  ERNMENTS  01    EUROPE 

"  [nstrument  of  Government."1  The  system  for  which  it  pro- 
vided,  which  was  intended  to  apply  to  the  three  countrii 
England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland,  set  upas  the  executive  power  a 
life  Prote  tor,  assisted  by  a  council  of  thirteen  to  twenty-one 
members,  and  as  the  legislative  organ  a  one  house  Parliament  oi 
460  members  elected  triennially  by  all  citizens  possessing  prop- 
erty to  the  value  of  C300.2  Cromwell  accepted  the  office  of 
Protector;  and  the  ensuing  six  years  form  the  period  commonly 
known  as  the  Protectorate. 

Government  under  the  [nstrument  was  only  moderately  suc- 
cessful. Cromwell  and  his  parliaments  quarreled  incessantly; 
in  particular,  they  could  not  agree  as  to  whether  the  pow< 
Parliament  should  be  construed  to  extend  to  the  revision  of  the 
constitution.  In  1657  the  Protector  was  asked  to  assume  the 
title  of  king.  This  he  refused  to  do,  but  he  did  accept  a  new 
constitution,  the  "Humble  Petition  and  Advice,"  in  which  a  step 
was  taken  toward  a  return  to  the  governmental  wept 

away  in  1649.3  This  step  comprised,  principally,  the  reestab- 
lishment  of  a  Parliament  of  two  chambers  —  a  House  of  Com- 
mons and.  for  lack  of  agreement  upon  a  better  designation, 
"the  Other  House."  Republicanism,  however,  failed  to  strike 
root.  Shrewder  men,  including  Cromwell,  had  recognized  from 
the  first  that  the  English  people  were  monarchist  at  heart,  and 
it  is  not  going  too  far  to  say  that  the  restoration  of  kingship 
was  inevitable.  Even  before  the  death  of  Cromwell,  in  1658, 
the  trend  was  distinctly  in  thai  direction,  and  after  the  hand  of 
the  great  Protector  was  removed  from  the  helm  such  a  consum- 
mation was  only  a  question  of  time  and  means.  On  May  25, 
1660,  Charles  II.  the  third  Stuart,  havinj  I  to  grant  a 

general  amnesty  and  to  accept  such  measures  of  settlement  of 
religion  as  Parliament  should  agree  upon,  landed  at  Dover  and 
was  received  with  general  acclamation.1 

1  Gardiner,  Documents,  405  417;  Select  Documents, 
407-416.  The  first  written  constitution  drawn  up  in  modern  Europe  was  the 
"  Agreement  of  the  People,"  presented  to  th<  House  of  Commons  in  1649.  This 
instrument,  however,  was  never  put  into  operation. 

2  On  the  history  of  1  ;  leral  parha  J,    \.   R     Marriott,   .' 
Chambers,  an  Inductive  Study  in  P                         Oxford,  tgio),  Chap,  iii;   A.  I 

titution    'in  protect*  du  Droit  Public, 

Oct.  and  Nov.   I  >e<  .. 
diner,  Document    0         Puritan  Revolution,  \\; 
'The  In   i  of  the  general  treatises  covering  the  period  [603  60  are  F.  C.  Mon 
tague,  fir  andfromt)  I  to  the  A'<  toration  (London, 

mo;  1,  and   l  the  Stuarts  (London,   1004).     The 

monumental  works  within  the  held  are  those  of  S.  R.  Gardiner,  i.e.,  History  of  Eng- 
land, 1603-42,  10   vols,    (new  ed.,  London,  1893-95);     History  of   Hie  Great  Civil 


CONSTITUTION   IN  RECONSTRUCTION,    1485-1689    29 

Monarchy  Restored:  the  Later  Stuarts. — The  years  1660- 
89  witnessed  a  final  grand  experiment  to  determine  whether  a 
Stuart  could,  or  would,  govern  constitutionally.  The  constitu- 
tion in  accordance  with  which  Charles  II  and  James  II  were 
expected  to  govern  was  that  which  had  been  built  up  during 
preceding  centuries,  amended  by  the  important  reforms  intro- 
duced by  Parliament  on  the  eve  of  the  Civil  War.  The  settle- 
ment of  1660  was  a  restoration  no  less  of  Parliament  than  of  the 
monarchy,  in  respect  both  to  structure  and  to  functions.  Al- 
though the  supremacy  of  Parliament  was  not  declared  in  any 
formal  statement,  the  chambers  were  in  fact  reestablished  upon 
their  earlier  foundations,  and  in  them  remained  the  power  to 
enact  all  legislation  and  to  sanction  all  taxation.  The  spirit, 
if  not  the  letter,  of  the  agreement  in  accordance  with  which  the 
Stuart  house  was  restored  forbade  the  farther  imposition  of 
taxes  by  the  arbitrary  decree  of  the  crown  and  all  exercise  of  the 
legislative  power  by  the  crown  singly,  whether  positively  through 
proclamation  or  negatively  through  dispensation.  It  required 
that  henceforth  the  nature  and  amount  of  public  expenditures 
should,  upon  inquiry,  be  made  known  to  the  two  houses,  and  that 
ministers  should  regularly  be  held  to  account  for  their  acts  and 
for  those  of  the  sovereign. 

The  enduring  and  world-wide  significance  of  the  Restoration 
has  been  admirably  stated  by  an  American  historian  as  follows : 
"  The  result  in  1660  .  .  .  was  a  compromise;  not  less  truly  a 
compromise  because  it  was  expressed  in  facts  rather  than  in 
words.  The  question  which  had  arisen  at  the  beginning  of 
the  reign  of  James  I,  whether  it  would  be  possible  to  make  the 
strong  monarchy  of  the  sixteenth  century  and  the  strong  parlia- 
mentary control  work  together  in  practice ;  what  boundary 
line  could  be  found  between  king  and  constitution,  had  been 
answered  by  the  discovery  of  a  compromise.  But  it  was  a  com- 
promise of  a  peculiar  type.     As  developed  in  the  next  hundred 

War,  4  vols.  (London,  1894) ;  and  History  of  the  Commonwealth  and  Protectorate, 
i  vols.  (London,  1894-1901).  Gardiner's  work  was  continued  by  C.  H.  Firth,  who 
ias  published  The  Last  Years  of  the  Protectorate,  1656-1658,  2  vols.  (London,  1909). 
The  development  of  institutions  is  described  in  Taswell-Langmead,  English 
Constitutional  History,  Chaps,  xiii-xiv;  Smith,  History  of  the  English  Parliament, 
I,  Bks.  vi-vii ;  Pike,  History  of the  House  of Lords,  passim;  J.N.  Figgis,  The  Theory 
of  the  Divine  Right  of  Kings  (Cambridge,  1896) ;  and  G.  P.  Gooch,  History  of  Eng- 
lish Democratic  Ideas  in  the  Seventeenth  Century  ('Cambridge,  1898).  An  excellent 
analysis  of  the  system  of  government  which  the  Stuarts  inherited  from  the  Tudors 
is  contained  in  the  introduction  of  Prothero,  Statutes  and  Constitutional  Documents. 
Of  the  numerous  biographies  of  Cromwell  the  best  is  C.  H.  Firth,  Oliver  Cromwell 
(New  York,  1904).  A  valuable  survey  of  governmental  affairs  at  the  death  of  James 
I  is  Maitland,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  237-280. 


jo  GOVERNMENTS  OF    I 

and  fifty  years,  it  meant  that  form  and  appearance  remained 

with  the  king,  the  reality  with  Parliament.  The  words  in  which 
the  modern  constitutional  lawyer  states  the  result  arc  as  ai  i  urate 
as  can  be  found  :   '  Sovereigns  in  the  king  in  his  Parlia- 

ment.'   The  king  is  in  theory  sovereign,  but  his  sovereignty  can 

be  declared  and  exercised  only  in  Parliament.  The  king  gave 
up  the  power  to  determine  by  his  individual  will  the  policy  of 
the  state,  but  the  surrender  was  disguised  by  an  appearance  of 
power  and  lor  a  long  time  by  the  exercise  of  very  substantial 
powers  and  the  permanent  possession  of  important  rights  and 
influence.  It  was  more  than  a  hundred  years  before  all  that  the 
compromise  implied  was  clearly  recognized  and  the  balance 
established  at  its  present  level.     But  it  was  really  made  in  1660. 

"  In  the  history  of  government  in  the  world  no  event  has  ever 
happened  of  greater  significance  or  of  wider  influence  than  the 
making  of  this  compromise.  Upon  it  depended  the  spread  of  the 
English  constitution  throughout  the  civilized  world  which  is  one 
of  the  chief  characteristics  of  the  nineteenth  century.  ...  In 
this  respect  it  is  difficult  to  overstate  the  influence  of  this  com- 
promise. Had  the  course  of  English  history  led  to  a  constitu- 
tion in  which  in  form  and  law  the  ministry  was  directly  respon- 
sible to  Parliament  instead  of  to  the  king,  not  merely  would  it 
have  been  immensely  more  difficult  to  reconcile  the  sovereign 
to  a  loss  of  the  substance  of  power,  but  the  adoption  of  the  con- 
stitution by  other  and  unwilling  monarchies  would  have  been 
made  a  practical  impossibility.  The  comprom;  se  feature  of  the 
present  constitution  by  which  in  theory  and  in  form  the  ministry, 
though  supreme,  seems  to  be  the  creature  of  the  king  and  re- 
sponsible to  him,  would  have  had  no  existence.  The  choice 
which  in  that  case  a  successful  revolution  might  offer  to  a  sover- 
eign between  a  formal  direct  responsibility  of  all  the  organs  of 
actual  government  to  the  legislative  assembly  on  one  side,  and 
an  out-and-out  republic  on  the  other,  would  have  had  no 
ticular  attractiveness  or  significance.  The  world  influence  of 
the  English  constitution  depended  for  it-  Lee  upon   the 

fact  that  Parliament  came  to  control  the  actual  government  in 
fact  rather  than  in  form,  indirectly,  not  directly;  that  an  actual 
republic  was  concealed  under  the  ceremonial  and  theoretical 
forms  of  a  continued  monarchy."  ' 

That  Charles  II  (1660-85)  contrived  most  of  the  time  to  keep 
within  the  bounds  which  th«  ystem  prescribed   for  him 

was  due  not  simply  to  a  somewhat  indolent  disposition  but  to  a 

1  Adams,  Outline  Sketch  of  English  Constitutional  History.  143-145. 


CONSTITUTION  IN  RECONSTRUCTION,   14S5-16S9     31 

political  insight  which  enabled  him  to  see  how  far  it  was  safe  to 
go  and  what  the  consequences  of  transgression  would  be.  His 
brother  and  successor,  James  II  (1685-88),  was  a  man  of  different 
temper.  He  was  a  Stuart  of  the  Stuarts,  irrevocably  attached 
to  the  doctrine  of  divine  right  and  sufficiently  tactless  to  take 
no  pains  to  disguise  the  fact.  He  was  able,  industrious,  and 
honest,  but  obstinate  and  intolerant.  He  began  by  promising 
to  preserve  "  the  government  as  by  law  established."  But  the 
ease  with  which  an  uprising  in  1685  was  suppressed  deluded 
him  into  thinking  that  through  the  exemption  of  the  Catholics 
from  the  operation  of  existing  laws  oppressing  them  he  might 
in  time  realize  his  ambition  to  reestablish  Roman  Catholicism 
in  England.  He  proceeded,  therefore,  to  issue  decrees  dispensing 
with  statutes  which  Parliament  had  enacted,  to  reestablish  the 
arbitrary  ecclesiastical  Court  of  High  Commission  abolished 
by  Parliament  in  1641.  and,  in  1687,  to  promulgate  a  declaration 
of  indulgence  extending  to  all  Catholics  and  Nonconformists 
a  freedom  in  religious  matters  which  was  clearly  denied  by  the 
laws  of  the  land.1  This  arbitrary  resumption  of  the  ancient 
prerogative  utterly  subverted  the  compact  underlying  the 
Restoration. 

The  Revolution  of  1688  89  :  the  Bill  of  Rights.  —  Foreseeing 
no  relief  from  absolutist  practices,  and  urged  on  by  the  birth, 
in  1688,  of  a  male  heir  to  the  king,  a  group  of  leading  men  repre- 
senting the  various  political  elements  extended  to  the  stadtholder 
of  Holland,  William,  Prince  of  Orange,  husband  of  Mary,  James's 
eldest  daughter,  an  invitation  to  come  over  to  England  to  up- 
hold and  protect  the  constitutional  liberties  of  the  realm.  The 
result  was  the  bloodless  revolution  of  1688.  On  November  5, 
William  landed  at  Torquay  and  advanced  toward  London. 
James,  finding  himself  without  a  party,  offered  vain  concessions 
and  afterwards  fled  to  the  court  of  his  ally,  Louis  XIV  of  France. 
A  provisional  body  of  lords,  former  commoners,  and  officials 
requested  William  to  act  as  temporary  "  governor "  until  the 
people  should  have  chosen  a  national  "  convention."  2  This 
convention  assembled  January  22,  1689,  decided  that  James, 
by  reason  of  his  flight,  should  be  construed  to  have  abdicated, 
and  established  William  and  Mary  on  the  throne  as  joint  sover- 
eigns.3 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  Documents  Illustrative  of  English  Church  History,  641-644 ; 
Adams  and  Stephens,  Select  Documents,  451-454. 

2  Not  properly  a  parliament,  because  not  summoned  by  a  king. 

3  On  the  legal  aspects  of  the  Revolution,  see  Maitland,  Constitutional  History 
of  England,  281-288. 


32  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

With  a  view  to  making  definite  the  terms  on  which  the  new 
dynasty  was  established,  Englishmen  now  put  into  writing  a 
considerable  portion  of  their  constitution  as  it  then  existed. 
On  Februa'ry  m,  1689,  l'u'  !U'W  sovereigns  formally  accepted  a 
Declaration  of  Right,  drawn  up  by  the  convention;  and  an  act 
of  Parliament,  December  [6  following,  made  this  instrument, 
under  the  name  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  a  part  of  the  law  of  the 
land. 

The  Bill  of  Rights  is  not  a  constitution  in  the  present-day 
sense  of  the  term,  or  even  in  the  sense  in  which  the  [nstrument 
of  Government  of  1654  was  a  constitution.  It  does  not  affirm 
the  sovereignty  of  the  people  or  of  Parliament.  Tt  attempts  no 
full  enumeration  of  the  rights  of  the  individual  citizen.  It  does 
not  describe  or  define  the  organs  of  government  nor  lay  them 
out  in  a  detailed  plan.  It  concerns  itself  only  with  the  practical 
difficulties  which  the  experience  of  the  past  three  years  had 
brought  to  light,  or  at  all  events  with  those  of  the  past  two 
generations.  It  specifically  denied  a  long  list  of  prerogatives 
to  which  the  last  Stuart  had  laid  claim  —  those,  in  particular, 
of  dispensing  with  laws,  establishing  ecclesiastical  commissions, 
levying  imposts  without  parliamentary  assent,  and  maintaining 
a  standing  army  under  the  exclusive  control  of  the  crown.  It 
guaranteed  certain  fundamental  rights  which  during  the  con- 
troversies of  the  seventeenth  century  had  been  repeatedly 
brought  in  question,  including  those  of  petition,  freedom  of 
elections,  and  freedom  of  speech  on  the  part  of  member:-,  of 
Parliament.1  It  affirmed  the  necessity  of  frequent  meetings 
of  Parliament ;  and  a  succession  clause  excluded  Roman  Catho- 
lics and  persons  who  should  marry  Roman  Catholics  from  the 
throne.2 

The  Bill  of  Rights,  therefore,  sums  up  the  essential  results  of 
the  Revolution,  and,  quite  as  truly,  of  the  entire  seventeenth 
century  liberal  movement.  Furthermore,  as  one  writer  has  put 
it,  "  in  the  historical  explanation  which  accounts  for  its  exist- 
ence, in  its  logical  meaning  and  necessary  implications,  and  in 
the  fundamental  principles  by  which  alone  it  can  be  justified, 

1  In  this  connection  should  be  recalled  th<  Habeas  Corpus  Act  of  1679,  which 
guaranteed  the  righl  of  an  individual,  upon  arrest,  to  have  his  case  investigated 
without  delay.  The  text  is  in  Adams  and  Stephens,  Select  Documents,  440-448, 
and  comment  will  be  found  in  E.  Jenks,  Select  Essays  on  Anglo-American  Legal 
History  (B  tl,  Chap.  xxxv. 

\   ,      ,  e  is  t!<    Toleration  Acl  of  May  2_4,_  1689,  which  provided 

rupulous  consciences  in  the  exercise  of  religion,"  i.e.,  a  larger  meas- 
;  libertj   for  Protestant   Nonconformists.     Gee  and  Hardy,  Documents  Illus- 
trative of  English  Church  History,  654-664. 


CONSTITUTION  IN   RECONSTRUCTION,    1485-1689     33 

it  includes  all  that  it  omits."  The  Revolution  of  1688  and  the 
Bill  of  Rights  thus  mark  in  a  very  important  sense  the  culmina- 
tion of  English  constitutional  development ;  all  that  followed 
was  but  the  detailed  application  of  the  principles  established 
in  the  seventeenth  century,  the  elaboration  of  the  machinery  of 
the  finally  vindicated  and  resistless  parliamentary  control. 
The  sovereignty  of  the  nation,  the  supremacy  of  law,  the  om- 
nipotence of  Parliament  —  no  one  of  these  was  ever  again 
seriously  called  in  question.  Kingship  went  on,  being  regarded 
as  a  natural  and  useful  institution.  But  henceforth  the  royal 
tenure  was  not  by  inherent  or  vested  right,  but  conditioned 
upon  the  consent  of  the  nation  as  expressed  through  Parliament. 
Divine  right  was  dead.1 

1  The  text  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  is  in  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  523-528.  General 
accounts  of  the  period  1660-89  wul  be  found  in  R.  Lodge,  History  of  England  from 
the  Restoration  to  the  Death  of  William  III  (London,  1910),  Chaps,  i-xv,  and 
in  Trevelyan,  England  Under  the  Stuarts,  Chaps,  xi-xiii.  O.  Airy,  Charles  II 
(London,  1904),  is  an  excellent  book.  The  development  of  Parliament  is  de- 
scribed in  Smith,  History  of  the  English  Parliament,  I,  Bk.  viii,  II,  Bk.  ix.  For  a 
succinct  survey  of  the  change  in  the  balance  of  power  in  the  constitution,  wrought 
mainly  in  the  seventeenth  century,  see  A.  M.  Chambers,  Constitutional  History  of 
England  (New  York,  1909),  317-344. 


CHAPTER   TTT 

CONSTITUTIONAL   DEVELOPMENT   SINCE   THE    SEVENTEENTH 

CENTURY 

Elements  of  Stability  and  of  Change.  —  In  its  larger  features, 
the  framework  of  the  Englisl  nmental  system   was  sub- 

stantially complete  by  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century. 
The  limited  monarchy,  the  ministry,  the  two  houses  of  Parlia- 
ment, and  the  courts  of  law  then  presented  the  same  general 
appearance  that  they  bear  to-day.  The  fundamental  principles, 
furthermore,  upon  which  the  government  '  lays  operated 

were  securely  established.  Laws  could  be  made  only  by  "  the 
king  in  Parliament  " ;  taxes  could  be  levied  only  in  the  same 
manner;    the  liberty  of  the  individual  »tected  by  a  score 

<  >f  specific  and  oft-renewed  guarantees.     In  point  of  fact,  however, 
the  English  constitution  of  1689  was  very   far  from  being  the 
English  constitution  of  1920.     The  overturn  by  which  the 
Stuart  was  driven  from  the  throne  not  only  marked  the  culmina- 
tion of  the  revolution  begun  in  1640;   it  formed  the  beginni] 
a  new  era  of  change  in  which  the  governmental  system  wa 
panded,  carried  in  new  directions,  and  continuously  readapted 
to  fresh  and  changing  conditions.     At  no  time  from  William  1 !  1 
to  George  V  was  there  a  deliberate  overhauling  of  the  political 
machinery  as  a  whole.     The  American  plan  of  holding  specially 
chosen  conventions  to  revise  a  constitution,  or  even  to  make  a 
new  one,  is  quite  unknown  to  English  practice.     The  changes 

made  gradually,  cautiously,  sometimes  hardly  consciously; 

save  in  occasional  parliamentary  enactments  and  judicial 

decisions,   they   rarely    found   expression   in    formal   documents. 

less,  it  is  hardly  too  much  to  say  that  of  the  rules  and 

practices  which  make  up  the  working  constitution  of  tin   United 

Kingdom  to-day,  almost  all  owe  their  form  and  character  to 

^•pments  of   the  past   two   hundred   years.     Much   of  the 
present  machinery  1  relatively  new;    indeed,  whereas  the 

great  contribution  of  the  seventeenth  century  was  principles, 
that  of  the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries,  as  of  the  four- 
teenth and  fifteenth,  was  institutions. 

34 


CONSTITUTIONAL   DEVELOPMENT  SINCE  1689      35 

Before  speaking  of  the  characteristics  of  the  constitution  as 
a  whole  it  will  be  well,  therefore,  to  follow  up  the  historical 
survey  contained  in  the  preceding  chapter  with  an  account  of  a 
few  of  the  most  important  of  these  developments  between  1689 
and  1900.  Equally  weighty  changes  of  more  recent  date  will 
be  described  in  succeeding  chapters  devoted  to  the  governmental 
system  as  it  now  is. 

The  Diminished  Power  of  the  Sovereign.  —  First  may  be 
mentioned  the  working  out  of  those  practical  relationships  be- 
tween the  king  on  the  one  hand  and  the  ministers  and  Parlia- 
ment on  the  other  which  enabled  the  two  houses,  acting  through 
the  ministers,  to  exercise  complete  and  continuous  control  over 
the  affairs  of  the  nation.  The  Revolution  of  1688,  as  has  been 
shown,  took  from  the  sovereign  once  for  all  several  prerogatives 
which  had  been  in  dispute.  William  III,  however,  was  no 
figurehead,  and  the  monarch  was  far  from  having  been  reduced 
to  impotence.  Understanding  perfectly  the  conditions  upon 
which  he  had  been  received  in  England,  William  none  the  less 
did  not  attempt  to  conceal  his  innate  love  of  power.  He  claimed 
prerogatives  which  his  Whig  supporters  were  loath  to  acknowledge, 
and  he  habitually  exercised  in  person,  and  with  telling  effect, 
the  functions  of  sovereign,  premier,  foreign  minister,  and  military 
autocrat.1  His  successor,  Anne,  although  far  from  aggressive, 
was  not  less  attached  to  the  interests  of  strong  monarchy.  It 
was  only  upon  the  accession  of  the  Llanoverian  dynasty,  in  1714, 
that  the  bulk  of  those  powers  of  government  which  the  sovereign 
had  hitherto  retained  slipped  finally  and  completely  into  the 
grasp  of  the  ministers  and  of  Parliament.  George  I  (1714-27) 
and  George  II  (1727-60)  were  not  the  nonentities  they  have 
been  painted,  but,  being  alien  alike  to  English  speech,  customs, 
and  political  institutions,  they  were  not  in  a  position  to  defend 
the  prerogatives  which  they  had  inherited.  Under  George  III 
(1 760-1820)  there  was  a  distinct  revival  of  the  monarchical  idea. 
The  king,  if  obstinate  and  below  the  average  intellectually,  was 
honest,  courageous,  and  ambitious.  He  gloried  in  the  name  of 
Englishman,  and,  above  all,  he  was  determined  to  recover  for 
the  sovereign  some  measure  of  the  prestige  and  authority  that  his 
predecessors  had  lost.  For  a  score  of  years  the  influence  which 
he  personally  exerted  upon  government  and  politics  exceeded 
anything  that  had  been  known  since  the  days  of  William  III. 
In  1780  the  House  of  Commons  gave  expression  to  its  appre- 

1  On  the  constitution  as  it  stood  at  the  death  of  William  III,  see  Maitland,  Con- 
stitutional History  of  England,  281-329. 


36  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

hensioD  by  adopting  a  series  of  resolutions,  of  which  the  first 
asserted  unequivocally  that  "the  influence  of  the  crown  has 
increased,  is  increasing,  and  ought  to  be  diminished." 

After  the  retirement  of  Lord  North  in  17S2,  however,  the 
power  of  the  sovereign  fell  off  rapidly,  and  during  the  later 
portion  of  the  reign,  clouded  by  the  king's  insanity,  all  that  had 
been  gained  for  royalty  was  again  lost.  Under  the  Regency 
(1810-20)  and  during  the  reign  of  the  reactionary  and  scandal- 
smirched  George  IV  (1820-30)  the  popularity,  if  not  the  power, 
of  the  king  reached  its  nadir.  In  the  days  of  the  genial  William 
IV  (1830-37)  popularity  was  regained,  but  not  power.  The 
long  reign  of  the  virtuous  Victoria  (183 7-1 901)  thoroughly 
rehabilitated  the  monarchy  in  the  respect  and  affections  of  the 
British  people;  and  the  position  thus  recovered  suffered  no 
impairment  at  the  hands  of  Edward  VII  and  George  V.  As 
will  be  pointed  out  in  another  place,  the  influence  which  the 
sovereign  may  wield,  and  during  the  past  three  quarters  of  a 
century  has  wielded,  in  the  actual  conduct  of  public  affairs  is 
by  no  means  unimportant.  But,  as  will  also  be  emphasized, 
that  influence  is  only  the  shadow  of  the  authority  which  the  king 
once  —  even  as  late  as  the  opening  of  the  eighteenth  century  — 
possessed.  It  is  largely  personal  rather  than  legal ;  it  is  more 
frequently  asserted  within  the  domain  of  foreign  relations  than 
within  that  of  domestic  affairs;  and  as  against  the  will  of  the 
nation  expressed  through  Parliament  it  is  powerless.1 

Ascendancy  of  the  House  of  Commons.  —  A  second  transfor- 
mation wrought  in  the  working  constitution  since  1689  is  the 
shifting  of  the  center  of  gravity  in  Parliament  from  the  House  of 
Lords  to  the  House  of  Commons,  together  with  a  notable  de- 
mocratization of  the  representative  chamber.  In  the  days  of 
William  and  Anne  the  House  of  Lords  was  distinctly  more 
dignified  and  influential  than  the  House  of  Commons.  During 
the  period  covered  by  the  ministry  of  Robert  Walpole  (1721- 
42),  however,  the  Commons  rose  rapidly  to  preponderance. 
One  cause  was  the  Septennial  Act  of  1716,  which  extended  the 
life  of  a  parliament  from  three  years  to  seven,  thus  increasing 
the  continuity  and  attractiveness  of  membership  in  the  Commons. 
Another  was  the  growing  importance  of  the  power  of  the  purse 

1  On  the  monarchical  revival  under  George  III,  see  1).  A.  Winstanley,  Personal 
and  Parly  Government;  a  Chapter  in  the  Political  History  of  llu  Early  Years  of  tin- 
Reign  of  George  III,  1760-1766  (Cambridge,  1010).     An  excellent  appraisal  of  the 

the  crown  throughout  the  period  1 760-1860  is  presented  in  T.  E.  May, 
Constitutional  History  of  England  since  the  Accession  of  George  III,  edited  and  con- 
tinued by  F.  Holland  (London,  1912),  I,  Chaps,  i-ii. 


CONSTITUTIONAL   DEVELOPMENT   SINCE    1689        37 

as  wielded  by  the  Commons.  A  third  was  the  fact  that  Walpole, 
throughout  his  extended  ministry,  sat  steadily  as  a  member  of 
the  lower  chamber  and  made  it  the  scene  of  his  remarkable 
activities. 

The  establishment  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Commons  as  then 
constructed  did  not,  however,  mean  the  triumph  of  popular 
government.  It  was  but  a  step  toward  that  end.  The  House 
of  Commons  in  the  eighteenth  century  was  composed  of  mem- 
bers elected  in  the  counties  and  boroughs  under  a  severely  re- 
stricted franchise,  or  appointed  outright  by  closed  corporations 
or  by  individual  magnates,  and  it  remained  for  Parliament  dur- 
ing the  nineteenth  century,  by  a  series  of  memorable  statutes, 
to  extend  the  franchise  successively  to  groups  of  people  hitherto 
politically  powerless,  to  reapportion  parliamentary  seats  so  that 
political  influence  might  be  distributed  with  some  fairness 
among  the  voters,  and  to  regulate  the  conditions  under  which 
campaigns  should  be  carried  on,  elections  conducted,  and  other 
operations  of  popular  government  undertaken.  Of  principal 
importance  among  the  pieces  of  legislation  by  which  these  things 
were  accomplished  are  the  Reform  Act  of  1832,  the  Representa- 
tion of  the  People  Act  of  1867,  the  Ballot  Act  of  1872,  the  Corrupt 
and  Illegal  Practices  Act  of  1883,  the  Representation  of  the 
People  Act  of  1884,  and  the  Redistribution  of  Seats  Act  of  1885. 
The  nature  of  these  measures,  and  of  their  notable  successor, 
the  Representation  of  the  People  Act  of  1918,  will  be  explained 
presently.1 

Rise  of  the  Cabinet.  —  The  period  under  review  is  farther 
important  because  it  produced  the  most  remarkable  feature  of 
the  English  constitutional  system  of  to-day,  namely,  the  cabinet ; 
and  not  merely  the  cabinet  as  an  institution,  but  the  cabinet 
system  of  government.  The  creation  of  the  cabinet  was  a 
gradual  process,  and  both  the  process  and  the  product  are  un- 
known to  the  letter  of  English  law.2  It  is  customary  to  regard 
as  the  immediate  forerunner  of  the  cabinet  the  so-called  "  cabal  " 
of  Charles  II,  i.e.,  the  shifting  group  of  persons  whom  that 
sovereign  selected  from  the  Privy  Council  and  took  advice  from 
informally,  in  lieu  of  the  Council  as  a  whole,  just  as  the  Privy 
Council  itself  had  been  detached  from  the  Great  Council  of 
Norman-Angevin  times.  In  point  of  fact,  the  practice  of  re- 
ferring important  questions  to  a  specially  chosen  group,  or  inner 
circle,  of  the  large  and  unwiejdy  Council  antedated  Charles  II ; 
both  the  practice  and'the  name  "  cabinet  council  "  existed  under 
1  See  Chap.  VIH.  <^  2  See,  however,  p.  1.03. 


y 


1  '    / 


.;s  GOVERNMEN  is  OF   EUROPE 

Charles  I.1  Not,  however,  until  after  1660  were  the  conditions 
right  for  the  cabinel  to  acquire  a  definite  place  in  the  machinery 
of  government;  not  until  after  that  date  would  it  have  been 
possible  for  the  cabinet  system  to  become  the  central  fact  and 
chief  glory  of  the  constitution. 

Development  under  (diaries  II  did  not  go  Ear.  On  the  theory 
that  the  "  great  number  of  the  Council  made  it  unlit  for  the 
secrecy  and  dispatch  that  are  necessary  in  many  great  affairs," 
the  king  drew  round  himself  a  half-dozen  ministers  who  had  his 
confidence  and  who  also  were  influential  with  Parliament.  To 
these  he  referred  the  great  questions  that  came  up,  and  to  them 
he  looked  to  procure  from  Parliament  the  legislation  th 
desired.  These  ministers,  the  Earl  of  Clarendon  (who  for  a 
time  belonged  to  the  group)  tells  us,  "  had  everyday  conference 
with  some  select  persons  of  the  House  of  Commons,  who  had 
always  served  the  king,  and  upon  that  account  had  great  inl 
in  that  assembly,  and  in  regard  of  the  experience  they  had  and 
of  their  good  parts  were  hearkened  to  with  reverence.  And 
with  those  they  consulted  in  what  method  to  proceed  in  dis- 
posing the  house,  sometimes  to  propose,  sometimes  to  consent 
to,  what  should  be  most  necessary  to  the  public ;  and  by  them 
to  assign  parts  to  other  men,  whom  they  found  disposed  and 
willing  to  concur  in  what  was  to  be  desired  :  and  all  this  without 
any  noise,  or  bringing  many  together  to  design,  which  ever  was 
and  ever  will  be  ingrateful  to  Parliaments,  and,  however  it  may 
succeed  for  a  little  time,  will  in  the  end  be  attended  by  prejudice." 

Herein  may  be  discerned  the  germ  of  the  later  cabinet  system  : 
a  single,  small  group  of  the  king's  principal  ministers,  now  giving 
collective  advice  to  the  sovereign,  now  introducing  and  urging 
forward  legislation  that  the  "  Government  "  desired.  However, 
the  system  itself  did  not  yet  exist.  The  king  chose  his  ministers 
with  no  necessary  consideration  of  the  political  complexion  or 
the  wishes  of  Parliament ;  practically,  if  no  longer  theoretically, 
these  ministers  were  responsible,  not  to  Parliament  or  the  nation, 
but  to  the  king  himself.  Far  from  recognizing  in  the  little 
ministerial  group  an  institution  that  might  be  utilized  to  bring 
the  king  under  still  farther  restraint,  the  leaders  of  liberal  thought 
attacked  it  as  being  an  agency  of  intrigue  in  the  sovereign's 
interest;  and  the  name  "cabinet  "  (arising  from  the  king's 
habit  of  receiving  the  members  in  a  small  private  room,  or 
cabinet,  in  the  palace)  first  came  into  use  as  a  term  of  reproach. 

1  E.  I.  Carlyle,  "Committees  of  Council  under  the  Early  Stuarts,"'  in  Eng. 
Hist.  Rev.,  Oct.,  1916. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  DEVELOPMENT  SINCE  1689      39 

The  device,  none  the  less,  met  a  serious  need ;  in  truth,  it 
may  be  said  to  have  been  ultimately  indispensable.  "  If  fully 
carried  out  in  practice,"  says  a  leading  authority,  "  the  com- 
promise [involved  in  the  Restoration  of  1660]  would  mean  the 
direct  supervision  and  control  of  all  lines  of  government  policy 
and  executive  action  by  the  legislative  assembly.  Such  an 
arrangement  was  new  to  all  human  experience  and  naturally 
there  existed  no  machinery  by  which  it  could  be  carried  out  in 
practice,  no  institutional  forms  through  which  a  legislature  could 
exercise  an  executive  authority  which  in  theory  it  did  not  have. 
Constitutional  machinery  for  the  practical  operation  of  the 
compromise  must  be  devised,  and  the  origin  and  growth  of  this 
machinery  is  the  origin  and  growth  of  the  cabinet  with  the 
principle  of  ministerial  responsibility  to  Parliament.  Or  we 
may  state  the  fact  in  another  way  :  the  English  system  of  vesting 
the  executive  authority  in  a  cabinet  virtually  chosen  by  the 
legislature  and  held  under  a  close  control  by  it,  was  the  method 
finally  devised  to  carry  out  in  the  practical  operation  of  the 
country  the  sovereignty  of  Parliament  which  had  resulted  from 
the  constitutional  advance  of  the  seventeenth  century."  1 

In  1688  the  cabinet  was  still  a  half- formed  and  misunderstood 
institution,  and  the  "  cabinet  system  "  was  not  conceived  of  at 
all.  But  the  events  of  that  and  the  succeeding  year,  insuring 
the  permanent  supremacy  of  Parliament,  made  the  development 
of  cabinet  government  inevitable.  William  III  retained  com- 
plete freedom  in  the  choice  of  ministers  and  considerable  control 
over  their  actions.  But  his  reign  brought  one  important  step 
forward.  Failing  in  the  attempt  to  govern  with  a  ministry 
including  both  Whigs  and  Tories,  the  king,  in  1693-96,  gathered 
around  himself  a  body  of  advisers  composed  exclusively  of  Whigs ; 
and,  although  this  was  at  first  a  matter  of  convenience  and  not 
of  principle,  it  gradually  became  an  axiom  that  the  chief  ministers 
should  be  selected  from  that  party  alone  which  had  a  majority 
in  the  House  of  Commons.  Parliament,  perceiving  but  not 
understanding  what  was  going  on,  continued  to  be  apprehensive  ; 
in  the  Act  of  Settlement,  in  1701,  it  actually  sought  to  stifle  the 
new  system,  although  that  part  of  the  measure  which  bore 
upon  the  subject  was  amended  before  being  put  into  operation.2 

The  reigns  of  George  I  and  George  II  —  a  period  of  forty- 
five  years  in  which  the  sovereign  took  no  active  part  in  public 
affairs  —  became  the  great  formative  period  in  cabinet  history. 

1  Adams,  Outline  Sketch  of  English  Constitutional  History,  153. 

2  See  p.  97. 


4o  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

Successive  groups  of  Whig  ministers  handed   themselves  firmly 

ther  to  keep  up  a  Whig  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons 

and   to   uphold    the   Hanoverian   line   against    the   Tories  and 

[acobites;    and  in   [742,  when  Sir  Robert  Walpole       the  first 

of  prime  ministers  lost  the  support  of  this  majority,  he 
promptly,  and  as  a  matter  of  course,  resigned.  In  this  same 
period  the  king  eeased  to  attend  cabinet  meetings,  and  Parlia- 
ment, beginning  to  understand  how  the  cabinet  system  enabled 
it  to  enforce  the  responsibility  of  ministers,  for  the  first  time 
became  willing  to  permit  the  old  rights  of  impeachment  and 
hill  of  attainder  to  he  tacitly  dropped.  By  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century  the  conception  of  the  cabinet  was  definitely 
fixed  as  a  body  normally  consisting  (a)  of  members  of  Parliament 
(b)  of  the  same  political  views  (r)  chosen  from  the  party  having 
a  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons  (d)  prosecuting  a  con- 
certed policy  (c)  under  a  common  responsibility  to  be  signified 
by  collective  resignation  in  the  event  of  parliamentary  censure, 
and  (/)  acknowledging  a  common  subordination  to  one  chief 
minister.1  Not  much  before  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  however,  were  the  implications  and  bearings  of  the 
cabinet  system  fully  and  generally  understood ;  and  the  system 
was  for  the  first  time  clearly  and  fully  described  in  writing  in 
Walter  Bagehot's  "  English  Constitution,"  published  in  1867.2 

Beginnings  of  Political  Parties.  —  A  fourth  development  in 
the  period  under  survey  is  the  rise  of  political  parties  and  the 
fixing  of  the  broader  aspects  of  the  present  party  system.  In 
no  nation  to-day  does  party  play  a  role  of  larger  importance  than 
in  Great  Britain.  Unknown  to  the  written  portions  of  the 
constitution,  and  almost  unknown  to  the  ordinary  law,  party 
management  and  party  operations  are,  none  the  less,  of  constant 
and  fundamental  importance  in  the  actual  conduct  of  govern- 
ment. The  origins  of  political  parties  in  England  are  not  easy 
to  trace.  Some  writers  will  not  admit  that  there  was  true  party 
organization  and  life  before  the  reign  of  Anne,  or  even  before  the 
ripening  of  the  cabinet  system  under  the  early  Georges.     Others 

1  H.  1).  Traill,  Central  Government  (London,  1881),  24-25. 

2  On  the  rise  of  the  cabinet  see,  in  addition  to  the  general  histories,  M.  T.  Blau- 
velt,  Development  of  Cabinet  Government  in  England  (New  York,  1902),  Chaps, 
i-viii;  E.  Jenks,  Parliamentary  England;  the  Evolution  of  the  Cabinet  System  (New 
York,  1903) ;  II.  B.  Learned,  "  Historical  Significance  of  the  Term  'Cabinet'  in  Eng- 
land and  the  United  States,"  in  Amer.  Polit.  Sei.  Rev.,  August,  1909;  H.  W.  V. 
Temperley,  "The  Inner  and  Outer  Cabinet  and  the  Privy  Council,  1679-1683," 
in  Eng.  Hist.  Rev.,  Oct.,  1912;  W.  R.  Anson,  "The  Cabinet  in  the  Seventeenth 
and  Eighteenth  Centuries,"  ibid.,  Jan.,  1914;  E.  R.  Turner,  "The  Cabinet  in  the 
Eighteenth  Century,"  ibid.,  Apr.,  191 7. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  DEVELOPMENT    SINCE    1689     41 

find  party  beginnings  in  the  reign  of  James  II ;  still  others  push 
them  back,  ministry  by  ministry,  to  the  Restoration  ;  Macaulay, 
indeed,  thought  that  the  first  English  parties  were  the  Cavalier 
and  Roundhead  factions  as  aligned  after  the  adoption  of  the 
Grand  Remonstrance  by  the  Long  Parliament  in  1641. 

It  will  not  strike  far  from  the  truth  to  say  that  the  first  groups 
that  can  be  thought  of  as  parties  in  the  present-day  sense  of  the 
term  —  groups  having  a  distinctive  theory  of  government,  a 
reasonably  stable  and  continuous  organization,  and  a  purpose 
to  control  legislation  by  means  of  a  majority  in  the  House  of 
Commons  —  were  the  Whigs  and  Tories,  sprung  from  the 
Petitioners  and  Abhorrers,  and,  back  of  them,  the  Country  and 
Court  parties,  of  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  Dividing  upon  the 
exclusion  of  James,  as  a  Catholic,  from  the  throne,  and  upon  other 
issues,  these  two  elements  gradually  assumed  well-defined  and 
fundamentally  irreconcilable  positions  upon  the  great  public 
questions  of  the  day.  Broadly,  the  Whigs  stood  for  toleration 
in  religion  and  for  parliamentary  supremacy  in  government ; 
the  Tories  for  Anglicanism  and  the  royal  prerogative.  And 
long  after  the  Stuart  monarchy  was  a  thing  of  the  past  these 
two  great  parties  kept  up  their  struggles  upon  these  and  other 
issues.  After  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  govern  with  the 
cooperation  of  both  parties  William  III,  as  has  been  stated,  fell 
back  upon  the  support  of  the  Whigs.  At  the  accession  of  Anne, 
in  1702,  the  Whigs  were  turned  out  of  office  and  the  Tories  (who 
already  had  had  a  taste  of  power  in  1 698-1 701)  were  put  in 
control.  They  retained  office  during  the  larger  portion  of 
Anne's  reign,  but  at  the  accession  of  George  I  they  were  com- 
pelled to  give  place  to  their  rivals,  and  the  period  1 714-61  was 
one  of  unbroken  Whig  ascendancy.  As  has  been  pointed  out, 
this  was  the  period  of  the  development  of  the  cabinet  system, 
and  between  the  rise  of  that  system  and  the  growth  of  govern- 
ment by  party  there  was  a  close  and  inevitable  connection.  By 
the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  rule  had  become  inflexible 
that  the  cabinet  should  be  composed  of  men  who  were  in  sympathy 
with  the  party  at  the  time  dominant  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  that  whenever  the  nation  elected  to  the  popular  branch  a 
majority  hostile  to  the  ruling  ministry,  that  ministry  should 
forthwith  resign.1 

The  Creation  of  "  Great  Britain  "  :  the  Union  with  Scotland 
(1707).  —  Finally   may   be   mentioned   the   important   changes 

1  On  the  rise  of  political  parties  consult  W.  C.  Abbott,  "The  Origin  of  English 
Political  Parties,"  in  Amer.  Hist.  Rev.,  July,  1919.     For  other  references  see  p.  241. 


42  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

that  flowed  from  the  reorganization  of  the  British  Esles  un 
single  compact  governmental  system.  The  United  Kingdom, 
as  we  know  it  to-day,  represents  a  union  of  four  formerly  inde- 
pendent countries  —  England.  Wales,  Scotland,  and  Ireland. 
After  much  hard  lighting,  a  large  part  of  Wales  was  incorporated 
into  English  territory  by  Edward  1  in  u8|.  Six  W'clsli  counties 
were  created,  on  the  English  model;  the  English  legal  system 
was  introduced;  the  Welsh  bishoprics  were  brought  under  the 
influence  of  the  ecclesiastical  province  of  Canterbury.  Henry 
VIII  completed  the  work  in  1535  by  setting  up  six  more  counties 
and  extending  to  both  the  counties  and  the  leading  towns  the 
right  of  sending  representatives  (twenty-three  in  all)  to  the 
House  of  Commons.  Thenceforth  Wales  was  fully  united,  for 
governmental  purposes,  with  England;  indeed,  "England*' 
now  includes  Wales  unless  special  exception  is  made. 

Edward  I,  the  conqueror  of  WTales,  undertook  also  to  subjugate 
Scotland.  But  the  Scottish  sense  of  nationality  proved  too 
strong  to  be  overcome  at  that  time,  and  the  northern  kingdom 
remained  entirely  separate  until,  in  160,^,  its  sovereign,  James  VI, 
ascended  the  throne  of  England  as  James  I.  Barring  a  brief 
interval  during  the  Protectorate,  the  legal  relation  between  the 
two  realms  continued  for  more  than  a  century  to  be  simply  that 
of  a  personal  union  through  the  crown.  The  kingdom  north  of 
the  Tweed  had  its  own  parliament,  its  own  established  church, 
its  own  laws,  its  own  courts,  its  own  army,  and  its  own  system 
of  finance.  The  arrangement  produced  a  good  deal  of  con: 
and  strife,  and  many  people  in  both  countries  believed  a  closer 
union  necessary  and  inevitable.  By  the  opening  of  the  eighteenth 
century  Scottish  national  pride  and  local  prejudice  had  been 
sufficiently  overcome,  and  the  desired  change  was  made  in  an 
act  of  union  passed  by  the  two  parliaments  in  1707.  The  two 
neighboring  land-  were  erected  into  a  single  kingdom,  ki 
henceforth  as  Great  Britain.  '1  he  Scottish  parliament  was 
abolished,  and  representation  was  given  the  Scottish  nobility 
and  people  in  the  British  parliament  at  Westminster.  The 
quota  of  commoners  was  fixed  at  forty-five,  thirty  to  be  chosen 
by  the  counties  and  fifteen  by  the  boroughs;  that  of  peers  at 
sixteen,  to  be  elected  by  the  entire  body  of  Scot  fish  peers  at  the 
beginning  of  each  parliament.  All  laws  concerning  trade,  ex- 
cises, and  customs  were  required  to  be  uniform  throughout  the 
two  countries ;  but  the  separate  laws  of  each  country  —  both 
common  law  and  statutes  —  upon  other  matters  were  continued 
in  operation,  subject  to  revision  by  the  common  Parliament. 


CONSTITUTIONAL   DEVELOPMENT    SINCE    1689       43 

The  Scottish  judicial  system,  which  was  in  some  respects  superior 
to  the  English  system,  went  on  as  before,  and  the  two  are  still 
separate ;  the  Scottish  schools,  which  were  also  superior  to  the 
English,  were  to  continue  unchanged ;  and  the  independence 
of  the  established  Presbyterian  Church  was  guaranteed.  The 
separate  identity  of  Scotland  persists  also  in  most  branches  of 
administration.  The  union,  however,  is  as  close  as  the  interests 
of  good  government  require ;  and,  although  the  Highlands  were 
not  entirely  won  over  until  after  the  middle  of  the  century,  the 
new  system  has  proved  in  later  days  both  successful  and  popular.1 
The  Creation  of  the  United  Kingdom :  the  Union  with  Ireland 
(1800).  —  The  history  of  Ireland,  in  most  of  its  phases,  is  that 
of  a  conquered  territory,  and  until  late  in  the  eighteenth  century 
the  country,  in  its  constitutional  status,  approximated  a  modern 
non-self-governing  colony.  During  the  Middle  Ages  the  com- 
mon law  and  the  political  institutions  of  England  were  introduced 
in  the  settled  portions  of  the  island  (the  Pale),  and  a  crude  sort 
of  parliament  came  into  existence,  although  only  the  English 
settlers  were  represented,  or  greatly  cared  to  be  represented, 
in  it.  In  1494  the  lord  deputy,  Sir  Edward  Poynings,  convened 
a  parliament  at  Drogheda  which  passed  a  law  providing  that 
thereafter  no  parliament  should  be  held  in  Ireland  until  the 
Irish  executive  and  privy  council  had  informed  the  king  of  the 
legislation  intended,  and  until  the  proposed  laws  had  been  ap- 
proved by  the  king  and  his  (English)  council.  Existing  English 
laws,  so  far  as  applicable,  were  to  have  force  in  Ireland ;  and 
most  parts  of  the  old  Statute  of  Kilkenny,  passed  in  1367  with  a 
view  to  a  strict  segregation  of  the  English  and  Irish  peoples  in 
the  island,  were  revived.  The  first  of  these  provisions,  commonly 
known  thereafter  as  Poynings's  Law,  effectually  stifled  parlia- 
mentary development  for  three  hundred  years.  The  parliament 
lived  on,  but  it  made  no  pretense  of  being  representative  of  the 
whole  population,  and  it  had  no  independence  and  little  initia- 
tive. In  1 541  Irish  members  were  admitted,  but  they  never 
counted  for  much ;  after  the  failure  of  the  rising  in  aid  of  James 
II,  in  1688-89,  Catholics  were  debarred,  and  a  little  later  they 
were  definitely  excluded  from  voting  at  parliamentary  elections. 
The  government  of  Ireland  in  the  eighteenth  century  was  carried 
on  by  a  Lord  Lieutenant,  or,  in  his  absence,  by  lords  justices,  in 

*J.  Mackinnon,  The  Union  of  England  and  Scotland  (London,  1896).  Thk 
scholarly  volume  covers  principally  the  period  1695-1745.  See  also  P.  H.  Brown, 
The  Legislative  Union  of  England  and  Scotland  (Oxford,  1914)-  On  the  superiority 
of  the  Scottish  public  organization  and  life  in  1707  see  Alison,  "The  Old  Scottish 
Parliament,"  in  Blackwood's  Mag.,  Nov.,  1834. 


44  GOVERNMENTS   01    EUROPE 

the  name  of  the  king,  but  under  the  ultimate  control  of  Parlia- 
ment at  Westminster,  which  in  [719  asserted  its  full  power  to 
make  statutes  binding  on  the  Irish  people. 

After  a  hundred  years  <>f  political  and  economic  prostration, 
the  Irish  nation  found  a  favorable  opportunity  to  reassert  its 
claims  to  autonomy.  About  1780,  when  England  was  at  bay, 
with  most  of  Europe  hostile  or  actually  in  arms  against  her,  and 
with  the  best  of  her  colonial  dominions  about  to  slip  from  her 
grasp,  the  eloquent  Henry  (irattan  put  himself  at  the  head  of  a 
movement  designed  to  break  the  power  of  the  English  Parlia- 
ment in  Irish  affairs;  and  in  17S2  a  law  was  passed  at  West- 
minster superseding  Poynings's  statute  and  granting  that  thence- 
forth the  Irish  people  should  be  bound  only  by  laws  passed  by 
the  king  and  the  parliament  of  Ireland.  Although  loudly  ac- 
claimed, this  legislation  yielded  no  great  advantage.  Catholics 
were  admitted  to  the  franchise  only  in  [793,  and  they  never  be- 
came eligible  to  membership ;  hence  the  parliament  was  essen- 
tially English  rather  than  Irish.  Besides,  while  reasonably 
independent  in  law-making,  the  body  had  no  control  whatever 
over  the  English-appointed  executive.  There  was  some  helpful 
li  gislation;  but  the  uneducated  masses  were  disappointed,  and, 
played  upon  by  French  influence,  they  broke  into  open  rebellion 
in  1798. 

The  suppression  of  the  insurrection  was  followed  by  one  of 
the  most  important  events  in  Irish  history,  namely,  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  legislative  union  with  Great  Britain.  The  con- 
siderations that  led  the  government  of  the  younger  Pitt  to 
decide  upon  this  step  were,  chiefly:  (1)  locked  in  deadly  combat 
with  one  of  the  most  powerful  continental  foes  she  had  ever 
encountered,  Britain  must  consolidate  her  resources,  and,  in 
particular,  must  draw  under  close  control  the  region  which  was 
furnishing  a  base  for  the  enemy's  Hank  attack;  (2)  Grattan's 
parliament  had  not  made  much  headway  toward  a  betterment 
of  conditions  in  the  island;  and  (3)  reasonable  concessions 
would  be  more  likely  to  be  made  and  the  longstanding  difficulties 
removed  by  merging  Ireland  into  a  union  with  Great  Britain, 
as  Scotland  had  formerly  been  joined  with  England. 

Hence,  an  Act  of  Union  creating  the  "  United  Kingdom  of 
Great  Britain  and  Ireland  "  was  drawn  up  and  presented  to  the 
two  parliaments.  Opinion  in  Ireland  was  decidedly  hostile, 
and  it  was  only  by  open  and  wholesale  bribery  that  the  bill  W3(: 
got  through  at  Dublin,  in  February,  1800.  The  British  parlia- 
ment passed  it  five  months  later,  and  on  January  1,  1801,  the 


CONSTITUTIONAL  DEVELOPMENT    SINCE    1689      45 

measure  took  effect.  The  Irish  parliament  was  now  abolished, 
and  it  was  arranged  that  Ireland  should  be  represented  in  the 
common  Parliament  by  four  spiritual  lords  and  twenty-eight 
temporal  peers,  chosen  by  the  Irish  peerage  for  life,  and  by  one 
hundred  members  (sixty-four  sitting  for  counties,  thirty-five 
for  boroughs,  and  one  for  the  University  of  Dublin)  of  the  House 
of  Commons.  The  Anglican  Church  of  Ireland  was  merged 
with  the  established  Church  of  England,  under  the  name  of  the 
United  Church  of 'England  and  Ireland,  although  less  than 
one  fifth  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  island  were  adherents  of  it. 
Customs  duties  between  the  two  countries  were  to  be  gradually 
abolished ;  for  twenty  years  contributions  to  revenue  by  the 
two  were  to  be  in  the  proportion  of  fifteen  to  two ;  and  all  laws 
in  both  were  to  remain  in  force  until  repealed.  The  union  was 
in  the  nature  of  a  contract,  and  while  the  Church  was  disestab- 
lished in  1869  and  one  or  two  other  changes  were  made,  in  the 
main  the  arrangement  stood  intact  until  1914,  when,  as  a  result 
of  many  decades  of  agitation  and  controversy,  a  Home  Rule 
Act  sought  to  turn  back  the  pages  of  history  and  restore  to 
Ireland  a  separate  parliament.  The  Great  War  caused  this 
measure,  as  soon  as  passed,  to  be  suspended ;  and  at  the  date  of 
writing  (May,  1920)  it  does  not  yet  appear  whether  it,  or  a  sub- 
stitute for  it,  will  finally  be  put  into  operation.1 

1  See  p.  321.  An  abridgment  of  the  text  of  the  Act  of  Union  with  Scotland  is 
printed  in  Adams  and  Stephens,  Select  Documents,  479-483 ;  of  that  of  the  Act  of 
Union  with  Ireland,  ibid.,  497-506.  The  full  text  of  the  former  will  be  found  in 
Robertson,  Select  Statutes,  Cases,  and  Documents,  92-105 ;  that  of  the  latter,  ibid., 
157-164.  On  Ireland  before  the  Union  see  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional 
History  of  England,  II,  Chap,  xvi,  and  E.  R.  Turner,  Ireland  and  England  (New  York, 
19 19),  Chaps,  iii-vi.  A  trustworthy  account  of  the  events  leading  to  the  Act  of 
Union  is  J.  R.  Fisher,  The  End  of  the  Irish  Parliament  (London,  191 1).  See  also 
references  on  p.  285  below. 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE    CONSTITUTION    AND    THE   GOVERNMENT 

What  "Constitution"  Means  in  England.  —  Writers  on 
government  use  the  term  "  constitution  "  in  two  widely  differ- 
ing senses.  Sometimes  they  mean  by  it  a  written  instrument  of 
fundamental  law  which  outlines  the  structure  of  a  governmental 
n,  defines  the  powers  of  the  governing  bodies  and  officers, 
enumerates  and  guarantees  the  rights  of  citizens,  and  perhaps 
lavs  down  certain  general  principles  and  rules  to  be  observed 
in  carrying  on  the  affairs  of  state.  The  document  may  have 
been  framed  by  a  special,  constituent  assembly,  or  drafted 
by  an  ordinary  legislative  body,  or  promulgated  upon  the  sole 
authority  of  a  prince  or  dictator.  On  the  other  hand,  the  writer 
may  employ  the  term  to  denote  the  whole  body  of  laws,  customs, 
and  precedents,  only  partially,  or  even  not  at  all,  committed  to 
writing,  which  determine  the  organization  and  workings  of  a 
government.  The  two  usages  are  equally  correct,  provided  one 
makes  clear  which  is  being  followed  at  any  given  time.  Thus 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States  is  the  document  drawn 
up  at  Philadelphia  in  1787  and  put  into  operation  in  1789,  plus 
the  eighteen  amendments  adopted  in  subsequent  years;  or 
it  is  this  instrument  taken  in  conjunction  with  a  great  ma 
rules,  laws,  customs,  and  interpretations,  which  lose  none  of 
their  importance,  or  even  of  their  binding  character,  because 
no  mention  of  them  can  be  found  in  the  fundamental  document.1 

Upwards  of  a  century  ago  a  scholarly  French  writer.  Alexis  de 
Tocqueville  —  author  of  a  valuable  work  on  democracy  in 
America  was  led  to  remark  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  an 
English  constitution.2     As  a  Frenchman,  he  was  accustomed  to 

1  The  nature,  classes,  and   modes  of  growth  <>f  constitutions  are  adequately 
ed  in    J.  W.  Gamer,  Introduction  /«  Political  Science  (New  Vnrk,  1910), 
Chap,  xii,  and  W.  I-'.  Willoughby,  Government  of  Modern  Stales  (New  \<>rk,  1919), 
Chaps.  \i  -vii. 

2Dc  h:  democratic  en  Ameriqne,  published  at  Paris  in   1835.       "In  I  ogland, 
.  "the  Parliament  has  an  at  I  nowledged  righl  to  modify  ili<-  constitution; 
titution  may  undergo  perpetual  changes,  it  doi  -  not  in  reality 
point) ;   the  Parliament  is  at  once  a  legislative  and  a  constituent 
assembly."     (Euvres  Completes,  I,  166-167. 

46 


THE   CONSTITUTION   AND   THE   GOVERNMENT      47 

consider  a  constitution  as  being  necessarily  a  document,  or  at 
all  events  a  group  of  documents,  framed  and  adopted  at  a  given 
time,  and  by  some  convention  or  other  special  agency,  and 
setting  forth  in  logical  array  the  framework  and  principles  of 
the  government  operating  under  it.  In  England  he  could  find 
nothing  of  this  sort ;  nor  can  one  do  so  to-day.  There  is,  how- 
ever, it  need  hardly  be  affirmed,  an  English  constitution  —  one 
which  is  at  once  the  oldest  and  the  most  influential  of  all  con- 
stitutions of  our  time.  It  is  not  contained  in  any  single  docu- 
ment, or  in  a  group  of  documents ;  a  great,  although  diminish- 
ing, portion  of  it  is  not  in  written  form  at  all ;  it  is  not  the  work  of 
any  special  constitution-framing  body  or  power ;  far  from  being 
adopted  at  any  one  time,  it  is  a  product  of  fifteen  centuries  of 
political  growth,  and  much  of  it  was  never  formally  "  adopted  " 
at  all.  In  short,  the  term  "  constitution  "  as  applied  to  Eng- 
land must  always  be  used  in  the  broader  sense  indicated  above. 
The  English  constitution  is  a  complex  of  elements  which  one 
could  hope  to  bring  together  only  by  examining  intensively  a 
thousand  years  and  more  of  history,  by  laying  hold  of  a  statute 
here  and  of  a  judicial  decision  there,  by  taking  constant  account 
of  the  rise  and  crystallization  of  political  usages,  and  by  probing 
to  their  inmost  recesses  the  mechanisms  of  administration, 
law-making,  taxation,  elections,  and  judicial  procedure  as  they 
have  been,  and  as  they  are  actually  operated  before  the  specta- 
tor's eyes. 

Component  Elements  :  the  Law  of  the  Constitution.  —  These 
elements  have  been  classified  in  various  ways.  For  purposes  of 
brief  enumeration  they  may  be  gathered  into  five  main  categories. 
In  the  first  place,  there  are  treaties  and  other  international  agree- 
ments, which  in  Great  Britain  as  in  the  United  States,  are  con- 
sidered parts  of  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  In  the  second 
place,  there  is  a  group  of  solemn  engagements  which  have  been 
entered  into  at  times  of  national  crisis  between  parties  represent- 
ing conflicting  political  forces.  Of  such  character  are  the  Great 
Charter,  the  Petition  of  Right,  and  the  Bill  of  Rights.  A  third 
and  larger  category  comprises  parliamentary  statutes  of  such 
character  and  importance  as  to  add  to  or  modify  governmental 
powers  or  procedure.  Statutes  of  this  type  obviously  include 
the  Habeas  Corpus  Act  of  1679,  the  Act  of  Settlement  of  1701, 
the  Septennial  Act  of  1 716,  Fox's  Libel  Act  of  1792,  the  Reform 
Acts  of  1832,  1867,  and  1884,  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act 
of  18^5,  the  Parliamentary  and  Municipal  Elections  Act  of  1872, 
the  Local  Government  Acts  of  1888  and  1894,  the  Parliament 


48  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

Act  oi  imi  i,  and  the  Representation  of  the  People  Ad  of  1918 
In  the  fourth  place  there  is  tin-  common  law,  a  vast  body  of 
legal  precepl  ami  usage  which  through  the  centuries  has  ac- 
quired binding  and  almosl  immutable  character.1  The  first 
three  elements  mentioned,  i.e.,  treaties,  solemn  political  engage- 
ments, and  statutes,  exist  solely,  or  almost  SO,  in  written  form. 
The  rules  of  the  common  law,  however,  have  not  been  reduced 
to  writing,  save  in  so  far  as  they  are  contained  in  reports,  legal 
opinions,  and,  more  particularly,  formal  decisions  of  the  courts, 
such  a^  those  on  the  rights  of  jurymen,  on  the  prerogative-  of 
the  crown,  on  the  privileges  of  the  houses  of  Parliament  and  of 
their  members,  and  on  the  rights  and  duties  of  the  police. 

Component  Elements  :  the  Conventions  of  the  Constitution. — 
Finally,  there  are  those  portions  of  the  constitution  which  have 
been  aptly  termed  by  Professor  Dicey  "  the  conventions."  2  The 
"  law  "  of  the  constitution,  composed  of  the  four  elements  that 
have  been  enumerated,  is  at  all  points,  whether  written  or  un- 
written, enforceable  by  the  courts ;  the  conventions,  although 
they  may,  and  not  seldom  do,  relate  to  matters  of  the  most 
vital  importance,  are  not  so  enforceable.  The  conventions 
consist  of  understandings,  practices,  and  habits  which  alone 
regulate  a  large  proportion  of  the  actual  relations  and  operations 
of  the  public  authorities.  They  may  somewhere  be  described  in 
writing,  but  they  do  not  appear  in  the  statute  books  or  in  any 
instrument  wdiich  can  be  made  the  basis  of  action  in  a  court  of 
law.  For  example,  it  is  a  convention  of  the  constitution  that 
forbids  the  king  to  veto  a  measure  passed  by  the  houses  of  Parlia- 
ment. If  the  sovereign  were  in  these  days  actually  to  veto  a 
bill,  the  political  consequences  might  be  serious,  but  there  could 
be  no  question  of  the  technical  legality  of  the  deed.  It  is  by  virtue 
of  a  convention,  not  a  law,  of  the  constitution,  that  ministers 
resign  when  they  have  ceased  to  command  the  confidence  of  the 
House  of  Commons ;  that  a  bill  must  be  read  three  times  before 
being  finally  voted  upon ;  that  Parliament  is  convened  annually, 
and  that  it  consists  of  two  houses.  The  cabinet,  and  all  that 
the  cabinet,  as  such,  stands  for,  rests  entirely  upon  convention. 
Obviously,  any  one  seeking  to  understand  the  constitutional 
system  as  it  is  and  as  it  operates  must  fix  his  attention  upon  the 
conventions  quite  as  intently  as  upon  the  positive  rules  of  law.3 

1  See  p.  207. 

2  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Law  of  the  Constitution  (8th  ed.),  Chap.  xiv. 

3  Convention  occupies  a  large  place  in  most  political  systems,  even  in  countries 
which  are  governed  under  elaborate  written  constitutions.  Their  importance  in 
the  government  of  the  United  States  is  familiar.     (See  Bryce,  American  Common- 


THE  CONSTITUTION  AND  THE  GOVERNMENT      49 

The  English  constitution  is  indeed,  as  Lord  Bryce  has  described 
it,  "  a  mass  of  precedents  carried  in  men's  minds  or  recorded  in 
writing,  of  dicta  of  lawyers  or  statesmen,  of  customs,  usages, 
understandings,  and  beliefs  bearing  upon  the  methods  of  gov- 
ernment, together  with  a  certain  number  of  statutes,  .  .  . 
nearly  all  of  them  presupposing  and  mixed  up  with  precedents 
and  customs,  and  all  of  them  covered  with  a  parasitic  growth 
of  legal  decisions  and  political  habits,  apart  from  which  the 
statutes  would  be  almost  unworkable,  or  at  any  rate  quite  dif- 
ferent in  their  working  from  what  they  really  are/' 1  At  no 
time  has  an  attempt  been  made  to  collect  and  to  reduce  to  writ- 
ing this  stupendous  mass  of  scattered  material,  and  no  such 
attempt  is  likely  ever  to  be  made.  "  The  English,"  as  the 
French  critic  Boutmy  remarks,  "  have  left  the  different  parts 
of  their  constitution  where  the  waves  of  history  have  deposited 
them ;  they  have  not  attempted  to  bring  them  together,  to 
classify  or  complete  them,  or  to  make  of  it  a  consistent  or  co- 
herent whole."  2 

Why  are  the  conventions  of  the  constitution  so  scrupulously 
observed,  notwithstanding  their  lack  of  legal  force?  It  is 
difficult  to  answer  the  question  to  one's  entire  satisfaction,  but 
two  or  three  considerations  go  far  toward  the  desired  explana- 
tion. In  the  first  place,  as  Dicey  points  out,  a  main,  if  not  the 
ultimate,  sanction  is  the  fact  that  it  is  not  possible  to  violate 
important  conventions  without  colliding  with  the  statutes  or, 
at  all  events,  running  into  overwhelming  practical  difficulties.3 
Thus,  unless  Parliament  renews  the  Army  Act  every  year,  the 
government  would  lose  all  disciplinary  authority  over  the  troops  ; 
and  though  most  of  the  revenue  is  collected  and  some  of  it  is 
spent  without  annual  parliamentary  authorization,  not  a  penny 
could  be  laid  out  on  the  army,  the  navy,  or  the  entire  civil  service. 
In  short,  if  the  great  conventions  were  ignored,  the  wheels  of  gov- 
ernment would  be  stopped.  This,  however,  does  not  cover  the 
whole  case.  As  Lowell  points  out,  England  is  not  obliged  to  con- 
tinue forever  holding  annual  sessions  of  Parliament  because  a 
new  mutiny  act  must  be  passed  and  new  appropriations  made 

wealth,  3d  ed.,  I,  Chaps,  xxxiv-xxxv) .     On  the  influence  of  conventions  in  France 
see  H.  Chardon,  L' Administration  de  la  France;    les  fonctionnaircs  (Paris,  1908), 

79-ios. 

1  "Flexible  and  Rigid  Constitutions,"  in  Studies  in  History  and  Juris  prudence 
(New  York,  1901),  134. 

2  Studies  in  Constitutional  Law:  France  —  England — United  Slates,  trans, 
by  Dicey  (London,  1891),  6.  Cf.  J.  O.  Taylor,  "A  Written  Constitution  for 
Britain,"  in  Jurid.  Rev.,  Dec,  1914. 

3  Law  of  the  Constitution,  Chap.  xv. 

E 


50  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

every  twelve  months;  the  omnipotent  Parliament  could,  quite 
as  well  as  not.  pass  a  permanent  army  act,  grant  the  annual  taxes 
ior  a  term  of  years,  and  charge  all  ordii  es  on  the 

Consolidated  Fund,  from  which  many  charges  already  are  paid 
without  authorization  of  Parliament  in  ea< 

The  conventions  are  therefore  supported  by  something  more 
than  the  realization  that  to  violate  them  may  mean  to  run  counter 
to  the  law;    the  law  i  p  readily  he  changed.      1'hi-  addi- 

tional support  is  drawn  from  public  opinion,  especially  opinion 
among  the  governing  elements.  "  In  the  main,"  says  Lowell, 
"  the  conventions  are  observed  because  they  are  a  code  of  honor. 
They  are.  as  it  were,  the  rules  of  the  game,  and  the  single  class 
in  the  community  which  has  hitherto  had  the  conduct  of  English 
public  life  almost  entirely  in  its  own  hands  is  the  very  class  that 
is  peculiarly  sensitive  to  obligation  of  this  kind.  Moreover,  the 
very  fact  that  one  class  rules,  by  the  suffrance  of  the  whole  nation, 
as  trustees  for  the  public,  makes  that  class  exceedingly  careful 
not  ti>  violate  the  understandings  on  which  the  trust  is  held."  - 
The  conventions  have  been  worked  out  through  the  centuries 
of  conflict  and  adaptation  that  make  up  the  story  of  English 
political  growth  ;  they  exist  to  secure  obedience  to  the  will  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  and  ultimately  to  the  will  of  the  nation ; 
they  constitute  the  means  by  which,  without  the  jars  and  strains 
that  would  have  accompanied  direct  legal  restraints  upon  the 
crown.  Parliament  has  drawn  under  its  own  control  all  powers 
of  the  sovereign  that  have  not  fallen  into  complete  disuse. 

Aspects  of  Continuity  and  of  Change.  —  In  view  of  what 
has  been  said,  two  observations,  representing  opposite  aspects 
of  the  same  truth,  are  pertinent.  The  first  is  that  in  respect  to 
the  principles  and  many  of  the  practices  of  the  English  con- 
stitution it  is  profoundly  true  that,  in  the  familiar  phrase  of 
Bishop  Stubbs,  the  roots  of  the  present  lie  deep  in  the  past.' 
The  second  is  that  the  English  constitution  is  a  living  organism, 
so  subject  to  change  that  any  description  of  it  that  may  be 
attempted  is  likely  to  stand  in  need  of  some  revision  as  soon 
as  it  is  printed.  At  no  time,  as  the  historian  Freeman  wrote, 
"  has  the  tie  between  the  present  and  the  past  been  rent  asunder ; 
at  no  moment  have  Englishmen  sat  down  to  put  together  a 
wholly  new  constitution  in  obedience  to  some  dazzling  theory."  ' 
On  the  contrary,  each  step  in  the  growth  of  the  constitutional 

1  Government  of  England,  I,  12.    Cf.  p.  187  below. 
-  I  hid.,  T,  12-13. 

3  Constitutional  History  of  England,  I,  prefatory  note. 
*  Grout  it  of  the  English  Constitution,  10. 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND   THE   GOVERNMENT      51 

system  has  been  the  natural  consequence  of  some  earlier  step. 
Great  changes,  it  is  true,  have  been  wrought.  To  mention  but 
the  most  obvious  illustration,  autocratic  kingship  has  been  re- 
placed by  a  parliamentary  government  based  upon  a  thorough- 
going political  democracy.  None  the  less,  transitions  have  as 
a  rule  been  so  gradual,  deference  to  tradition  so  habitual,  and 
the  disposition  to  cling  to  ancient  names  and  forms,  even  when 
the  spirit  had  changed,  so  deep-seated,  that  the  constitutional 
history  of  England  presents  an  aspect  of  continuity  that  cannot 
be  paralleled  in  any  other  country  of  Europe. 

The  letter  of  a  written  constitution  may  survive  through  many 
decades  unchanged,  as  has  that  of  the  Italian  Statuto  of  1848, 
and  as  did  that  of  the  American  constitution  between  1804  and 
1865.  No  constitutional  system,  however,  long  stands  still, 
and  least  of  all  one  of  the  English  type,  in  which  there  is  little 
of  even  the  formal  rigidity  that  arises  from  written  texts.  Hav- 
ing no  fixed  and  orderly  shape  assigned  it  originally  by  some 
supreme  authority,  the  constitution  of  the  United  Kingdom  has 
retained  throughout  its  history  a  notable  flexibility.  It  is  by 
no  means  to-day  what  it  was  fifty  years  ago ;  fifty. years  hence 
it  will  be  by  no  means  what  it  is  to-day.  In  times  past  changes 
have  sometimes  been  accompanied  by  violence,  or,  at  all  events, 
by  extraordinary  demonstrations  of  the  national  will.  Nowa- 
days they  are  introduced  through  the  ordinary  and  peaceful 
processes  of  legislation,  of  judicial  interpretation,  and  of  ad- 
ministrative practice.  Sometimes,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Parlia- 
ment Act  of  191 1  altering  the  powers  of  the  House  of  Lords, 
they  are  accompanied  by  heated  controversy  and  wide-spread 
public  agitation.  Frequently,  however,  they  represent  inevitable 
and  unopposed  amplifications  of  existing  law  or  practice,  and  are 
hardly  taken  note  of  by  the  nation  at  large. 

Power  of  Parliament  to  Alter  the  Constitution.  —  In  the  main, 
changes  are  made  in  the  English  constitution  to-day  by  act  of 
Parliament.  In  the  United  States  and  in  some  European  coun- 
tries a  sharp  distinction  is  drawn  between  the  powers  of _  con- 
stitution framing  and  amendment  and  the  powers  of  ordinary 
legislation.  Our  Congress  may  propose  a  constitutional  amend- 
ment ;  but  the  change  can  be  made  only  by  an  affirmative  vote 
of  the  legislatures  of  three  fourths  of  the  states.1  In  England 
powers  are  not  thus  divided.  All  are  vested  alike  in  Parliament ; 
and  so  far  as  the  processes  of  enactment,  repeal,  and  revision 

1  An  alternative  mode  of  ratification  is  by  conventions,  acting  affirmatively 
in  three  fourths  of  the  states.     But  this  plan  has  never  been  followed. 


5.1  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

arc  concerned,  there  is  no  difference  whatever  between  a  measure 
affecting  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  governmental  sy  item 
and  a  statute  pertaining  to  the  mosl  petty  subject  <>f  ordinary 
law.  "Our  Parliament,"  observes  Vnson,  "can  make  laws 
prol  si  ting  wild  birds  or  shell-fish,  and  with  the  same  procedure 
i  ould  break  the  connection  of  ( Ihurch  and  State,  or  give  political 
power  to  two  millions  of  citizens,  and  redistribute  it  among  new 
constituencies."  '  The  keystone  of  the  law  of  the  constitution 
is,  indeed,  the  omnipotence  of  Parliament  in  the  spheres  both  of 
constitution-making  and  of  ordinary  legislation.  In  Parlia- 
ment is  embodied  the  supreme  will  of  the  nation ;  and  although 
from  time  to  time  that  will  may  declare  itself  in  widely  varying, 
and  even  inconsistent,  ways,  at  any  given  moment  its  pronounce- 
ments are  authoritative  and  conclusive. 

It  is  true  that  of  late  there  has  been  a  growing  feeling  that 
when  fundamental  and  far-reaching  changes  are  under  con- 
sideration Parliament  ought  not  to  act  until  after  the  matter 
has  been  put  before  the  people  at  a  general  election.  It  was  in 
deference  to  this  idea  that  the  parliamentary  election  of  Decem- 
ber, 1 910,  was  ordered,  with  the  reform  of  the  House  of  Lords 
as  the  one  great  issue.2  No  fixed  rule  of  the  kind,  however,  has 
established  itself,  as  is  evidenced  by  the  enfranchisement  of  six 
million  women  —  not  to  mention  other  revolutionary  changes 
in  the  electoral  system  —  accomplished  in  the  Representation 
of  the  People  Act  of  191 8  entirely  without  formal  popular  man- 
date ;  and  it  remains  true  not  only  that  the  electorate  has  no 
legal  means  by  which  it  can  initiate  and  obtain  "consideration 
of  constitutional  changes,  but  that  it  has  no  way  of  directly 
expressing  its  opinions  regarding  proposals  of  this  character 
originated  by  Parliament,  save  in  the  uncertain  event  of  a  dissolu- 
tion, followed  by  a  national  election,  before  a  final  decision  shall 
have  been  reached.  The  English  political  system,  therefore, 
"  furnishes  a  perfect  example  where  the  electorate  has  not  only 
wholly  surrendered  to  the  government  the  exercise  of  constituent 
powers,  or,  to  speak  more  correctly,  has  acquiesced  in  the  com- 
plete exercise  by  that  body  of  constituent  powers,  but  has 
imposed  upon  that  body  no  obligation  to  exercise  these  powers 
in  any  manner  different  from  that  followed  in  the  enactment  of 
ordinary  law."  :: 

1  Law  and  ( 'ustom  of  the  Constitution  (4th  ed.),  I,  358.  See  also  Dicey,  Law  of 
the  Constitution,  Chap,  i,  and  F.  Pollock.  First  Hook  of  Jurisprudence  for  Students 
1  'ommon  Low  (London,  [896),  Pt.  ii,  Chap.  iii.  -Sec  p.  1 5 2 . _ 

:i  Willoughby,  Government  of  Modern  Stoles,  123.  On  the  similar  situation  ill 
France,  see  p.  384  below.     For  brief  discussions  of  the  general  nature  of  the  English 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND   THE   GOVERNMENT      53 

The  Unitary  System  and  the  Powers  of  Parliament.  —  From 
the  nature  of  the  constitution  as  thus  outlined  flow  two  or  three 
major  characteristics  of  the  English  governmental  system.  The 
first  is  the  unitary,  as  opposed  to  the  federal,  form.  A  federal 
system  of  government  prevails  where  the  political  sovereign 
(whatever  it  may  be  in  the  individual  case)  has  made  a  dis- 
tribution of  the  powers  of  government  among  certain  agencies, 
central  and  divisional,  and  has  done  so  through  the  medium  of 
constitutional  provisions  which  neither  central  nor  divisional 
government  has  made  and  which  are  beyond  the  power  of  either 
to  alter  or  rescind.  The  important  thing  is  not  the  territorial 
distribution  of  powers,  for  this  is  a  practical  necessity  under  all 
forms  of  government,  nor  yet  the  amount  or  kinds  of  power 
distributed,  but  the  fact  that  the  distribution  is  made  by  an 
authority  superior  to  both  central  and  divisional  governments. 
The  United  States  has  a  federal  form  of  government  because  the 
partition  of  powers  between  the  national  government  and  the 
state  governments  is  made  by  the  sovereign  people,  through 
the  national  constitution,  and  cannot  be  changed  by  the  govern- 
ment at  Washington  any  more  than  by  that  at  Albany  or  Harris- 
burg  or  Indianapolis.  On  the  other  hand,  the  government  of 
England  is  unitary,  because  there  is  but  a  single  integral  govern- 
ment in  which  all  power  is  concentrated,  namely,  the  govern- 
ment centering  at  London  :  a  government  which  has  created  the 
counties,  boroughs,  and  other  local  political  areas  for  its  own 
convenience,  which  has  endowed  them,  as  subordinate  districts, 
with  such  powers  as  it  chose  to  bestow,  and  which  is  free  to  alter 
them  in  their  organization  and  powers  at  any  time,  or  even  to 
abolish  them  altogether. 

It  follows  that  the  national  government,  being  all-comprehen- 
sive, is  omnipotent,  and  that  its  central,  dominating  organ, 
Parliament,  knows  no  legal  restriction  of  power.  Every  measure 
of  Parliament,  of  whatever  nature  and  under  whatever  circum- 
stances enacted,  is  "  constitutional,"  in  the  sense  that  it  is 
legally  valid  and  enforceable.  When  an  Englishman  says  of  a 
measure  that  it  is  unconstitutional  he  means  only  that  it  is  in- 
consistent with  a  previous  enactment,  with  an  established  usage, 

constitution  see  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,  1-15;  T.  F.  Moran,  Theory  and 
Practice  of  the  English  Government  (new  ed.,  New  York,  1908),  Chap,  i;  J.  A.  R. 
Marriott,  English  Political  Institutions  (Oxford,  1910),  Chaps,  i-ii;  J.  Macy, 
The  English  Constitution  (New  York,  1897),  Chaps,  i,  Lx;  and  S.  Low,  The  Govern- 
ance of  England  (London,  1904),  Chap.  i.  A  suggestive  characterization  is  the 
Introduction  of  W.  Bagehot,  The  English  Constitution  (new  ed.,  Boston,  1873). 
A  more  extended  analysis  is  Dicey,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Law  of  the  Consti- 
tution, especially  the  Introduction  and  Chaps,  i,  iii,  xiii-xv. 


54  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

with  the  principles  of  international  law,  or  with  the  commonly 
accepted  standards  of  morality.  Such  a  measure,  if  passed  in 
due  form  by  Parliament,  becomes  an  integral  part  of  the  law  of 

the  land,  and  as  such  will  be  enforced  by  the  courts.  There  is 
no  means  by  which  it  can  be  rendered  of  no  effect,  save  repeal 
by  the  same  or  a  succeeding  parliament.  In  England,  as  in 
European  countries  generally,  the  judicial  tribunals  are  en- 
dowed with  no  power  to  pass  upon  the  constitutional  validity  of 
legislative  acts.  Every  such  act  is  ipso  facto  valid,  whether  it 
relates  to  the  most  trivial  subject  of  ordinary  legislation  or  to 
the  organic  arrangements  of  the  state;  and  no  person  or  body, 
aside  from  Parliament  itself,  has  a  right  to  override  it  or  t 
it  aside. 

The  Rights  of  the  Individual.  —  This  raises  the  interesting 
question  of  the  status  of  the  individual  citizen  under  the  govern- 
ment. As  has  been  pointed  out  by  an  American  writer,  there 
are  three  principal  methods  by  which  individual  rights  may  be 
defined  and  guaranteed.1  The  first  is  specific  enumeration  in 
the  constitution.  This  is  distinctly  the  American  method : 
our  federal  constitution  and  most  of  the  state  constitutions 
contain  either  formal  "  bills  of  rights  "  or  articles  tantamount 
thereto.  The  effect  is  to  place  the  rights  or  liberties  enumerated 
substantially  beyond  the  power  of  the  government  to  curtail. 
Theoretically  there  is  advantage  in  this.  Practically,  however, 
there  is  some  disadvantage,  because  changing  conditions  require 
that  in  the  interest  of  justice  individual  rights  shall  from  time 
to  time  be  freshly  defined.  At  least,  new  qualifications  and 
limitations  must  occasionally  be  imposed.  This  readjustment 
can  be  made,  of  course,  by  amending  the  constitution.  But 
constitutional  amendments  are  difficult  to  procure,  and  rights 
once  conceded  in  a  constitution  are  extremely  difficult  to  with- 
draw. "  It  is  now  the  best  legal  opinion  in  the  United  States," 
says  the  authority  mentioned  above,  "  that,  not  only  has  the 
statement  of  these  [individual]  rights,  in  the  absolute  form  in 
which  they  appear  in  the  federal  and  state  constitutions,  led  to 
an  enormous  amount  of  litigation,  but  that  the  hands  of  the 
governments  have  been  seriously  tied  in  their  efforts  to  introduce 
legal  and  social  reforms  urgently  demanded  by  the  people  them- 
selves. So  serious  is  the  situation  that  it  is  almost  impossible 
to  enact  any  important  social  legislation  without  having  its 
validity  immediately  challenged  in  the  courts."  2 

1  Willoughby,  Government  of  Modern  States,  151-157. 

2  Ibid.,  153. 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND   THE   GOVERNMENT      55 

A  second  plan,  for  which  much  can  be  said,  is  that  of  putting 
into  the  constitution  a  broad  guarantee  of  individual  rights, 
while  yet  endowing  the  government  with  power  to  introduce 
such  definitions  and  restrictions  as  experience  shows  to  be 
essential  to  the  public  well-being.  This  is  the  method  of  Switzer- 
land, of  Japan,  and  of  China.  Thus  the  Swiss  constitution,  in- 
stead of  making  a  flat  grant  of  freedom  of  the  press,  says  that 
"  the  freedom  of  the  press  is  guaranteed ;  nevertheless,  the 
cantons,  by  law,  may  enact  measures  necessary  for  the  sup- 
pression of  abuses."  x  , 

England,  France,  and  some  other  states  follow,  however,  still 
a  different  method.  They  make  little  or  no  attempt  to  define 
individual  rights  in  any  organic  instrument.  It  is  true  that 
several  fundamental  rights  of  Englishmen  are  solemnly  guar- 
anteed in  such  documents  as  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act  and  the 
Toleration  Act.  It  is  true,  also,  that  some  of  the  best  French 
constitutional  lawyers  hold  that  the  individual  rights  enu- 
merated in  the  Declaration  of  Rights  of  1789,  although  not 
mentioned  in  the  constitutional  laws  of  1875,  have  full  force 
and  sanction  to-day.2  Still,  the  fact  remains  that  the  omnipotent 
English  Parliament  is  no  more  subject  to  legal  limitations  of 
power  in  dealing  with  individual  rights  than  in  dealing  with 
anything  else,  and  that  even  if  the  guarantees  of  1789  be  ac- 
cepted as  parts  of  the  present  French  constitution,  the  govern- 
ment itself  can  amend  this  constitution  and  thereby  work  any 
change  in  the  status  of  the  individual  that  it  desires.3  Legally, 
therefore,  the  individual  in  England  and  France  has  no  pro- 
tection at  all  against  the  government,  for  the  reason  that  the 
state  which  stands  back  of  the  government  has  not  seen  fit  to 
impose  restrictions  of  the  kind  with  which  we  are  familiar  in 
the  United  States.  The  reason  why  it  has  not  done  so  is  that 
no  such  restrictions  are  needed ;  for  we  know  that,  practically, 
there  are  no  parts  of  the  world  in  which  individual  rights  are 
more  scrupulously  respected  than  in  the  countries  mentioned. 
The  fundamental  guarantee  of  these  rights  is  the  traditions  and 
beliefs  of  the  people ;  if  these  were  not  enough,  others  would 
before  now  have  been  provided.4 

The  Functional  Distribution  of  Powers.  —  Powers  of  govern- 
ment can  be  distributed  not  only  geographically  but  functionally. 

1  Art.  55. 

2  See  L.  Duguit,  Traitc  dc  droit  constitutionnel  (Paris,  191 1),  II,  13. 

3  See  p.  384. 

*  On  the  history-  of  personal  liberty  in  England,  see  May  and  Holland,  Consti- 
tutional History  of  England,  II,  Chaps,  ix-xiv. 


56  GOVERNMENTS  01    EUROPE 

Nothing  is  more  natural  than  to  put  the  exercise  of  diff< 
kinds  of  power  in  the  hands  of  different  organs  of  government ; 
and  in  every  government  there  is  a  certain  amount  of  such 
distribution,  jusl  as  then'  is  <>i"  necessity  a  certain  amount 
of  distribution  on  a  geographical  basis.  One  reason  for  a  fun< 
tional  distribution  is  practical  convenience.  Tin-  ta-k>  of  govern- 
ment arc  so  numerous  and  onerous  that,  they  must  be  divided 
among  many  hands.  A  second  consideration  is  the  security  of 
the  public  interests.  Xo  single  governmental  organ  or  group  of 
organs,  it  is  urged,  should  be  endowed  with  so  much  power  that 
it  can  become  tyrannical;  powers  must  be  distributed  among 
various  agencies,  which  can  be  set  to  watch  and  check  each 
other. 

There  are  two  ways  in  which  tin's  functional  distribution  may 
be  accomplished.  It  may  be  ordained  in  the  constitution  under 
which  a  government  operates,  and  therefore  be  beyond  the 
control  of  the  government  itself.  Or  it  may  be  left  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  government,  on  such  lines  as  it  deems  desirable. 
In  the  one  case  we  have  a  government  of  a  "  separation  of 
powers  "  ;  in  the  other,  a  government  of  a  "  union  of  power-." 
This  distinction  is,  however,  of  legal  rather  than  practical  im- 
portance. There  will  always  be  some  separation ;  and  it  i^>  a 
curious  fact  that  the  state  in  which  separation  is  perhaps  carried 
farthest,  i.e.,  England,  is  almost  the  only  one  of  importance 
which  is  organized  legally  on  the  principle  of  a  union  of  powers. 
The  cardinal  feature  of  the  English  political  system  is  the  un- 
limited authority  of  Parliament.  This  body  is  free  to  keep  in, 
or  to  take  into,  its  own  hands  the  exercise  of  any  and  all  powers 
that  it  chooses  and  to  distribute  the  remaining  ones  how  and 
where  it  likes.  All  powers,  accordingly,  are,  legally,  united  in  it. 
Practically,  however,  it  reserves  to  itself  only  the  legislative 
function.  It  has  never  shown  any  inclination  to  take  over 
executive  functions,  much  less  to  busy  itself  with  administration. 
The  judiciary  is  notably  independent.  And  while  it  is  true  that 
the  same  group  of  men,  the  cabinet  minist  as  the  leaders 

in  legislation,  preside  over  the  administrative  services,  and 
have  custody  of  the  executive  powers  of  the  crown  —  so  that 
there  may  be  said  to  be  a  personal  union  of  powers  —  these 
dignitari<  are  always  careful  to  keep  their  activities  and  rela- 
tionship:, in  the  three  capacities  essentially  distinct.  This 
combination  of  functions  in  the  same  hands  makes  for  harmony 
and  expeditiousiK>>  without  destroying  the  advantages  that 
arise  from  a  clear  perception  and  application  of  the  principle  of 


THE  CONSTITUTION  AND  THE   GOVERNMENT      57 

organic  separation;     therein,  indeed,  lies  the  great  strength  of 
the  English  system  of  government. 

The  United  States,  on  the  other  hand,  affords  an  example  of 
a  state  whose  government  is  legally  a  government  of  "  separa- 
tion of  powers,"  yet  practically  is  less  fully  organized  according 
to  that  principle  than  is  the  English.  The  framers  of  the  fed- 
eral constitution,  acting  in  the  light  of  their  own  experience, 
and  deeply  affected  by  the  ideas  set  forth  in  John  Locke's  Two 
Treatises  of  Government,  Montesquieu's  Spirit  of  Laws,  and  other 
political  writings  which  were  widely  read  in  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, evolved  a  governmental  system  whose  basic  principle  is 
the  separation  of  executive,  legislative,  and  judicial  powers. 
Provisions  for  such  separation  were  incorporated  in  the  con- 
stitution itself;  so  that,  unlike  the  situation  in  England,  the 
separation  is  not  a  matter  for  the  determination  of  the  govern- 
ment. The  authors  of  the  new  organic  law  had  no  intention, 
however,  to  put  any  branch  of  the  government  in  a  position 
of  such  independence  that  it  could  usurp  authority  or  disturb 
the  equilibrium.  Hence  they  interposed  a  series  of  checks 
and  balances  which  caused  the  executive  branch  to  become 
partly  legislative  in  function  and  the  legislative  branch  partly 
executive  in  function;  while  they  made  no  direct  provision 
for  an  administrative  branch  at  all.  The  curious  consequence 
is  that,  although  legally  a  government  of  separate  powers, 
the  government  of  the  United  States  in  reality  operates  rather 
less  in  accordance  with  that  principle  than  does  the  government 
of  England. 


CHAPTER   V 

THE   CROWN 

Having  observed  the  main  aspects  of  the  English  constitution 
-its  antiquity,  its  diversity  of  origins,  its  flexibility,  and  its 
elusiveness  —  we  come  now  to  consider  the  actual  governmental 
system  that  operates  under  it.  We  may  best  begin  with  the 
great  institutions  that  stand  at  the  head  and  hold  the  system 
together,  namely,  kingship,  the  ministry,  and  the  cabinet. 
Parliament,  which  in  the  final  analysis  is  the  most  important 
part  of  the  system,  will  be  duly  considered  in  later  chapters. 

Contrasts  of  Theory  and  Fact.  —  The  government  of  the 
United  Kingdom  is  in  ultimate  theory  an  absolute  monarchy, 
in  form  a  limited,  constitutional  monarchy,  and  in  actual  char- 
acter a  democratic  republic.  At  its  head  stands  the  sovereign, 
who  is  at  the  same  time  the  supreme  executive,  the  source  of  all 
law,  the  fountain  of  justice  and  of  honor,  the  "  supreme  gov- 
ernor "  of  the  Church,  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and 
navy,  the  conservator  of  the  peace,  parens  patriae  and  guardian 
of  the  helpless  and  the  needy.  In  law,  all  land  is  held,  directly 
or  indirectly,  of  him.  Parliament  exists  only  by  his  will.  Those 
who  sit  in  it  are  summoned  by  his  writ,  and  the  privilege  of 
voting  for  a  member  of  the  lower  chamber  is  only  a  franchise, 
not  a  right  independent  of  his  grant.  The  sovereign  never 
dies  ;  there  is  only  a  demise  of  the  crown,  i.e.,  a  transfer  of  regal 
authority  from  one  person  to  another,  and  the  state  is  never 
without  a  recognized  head. 

These  assertions  express  with  substantial  accuracy  the  ulti- 
mate, historic  theory  of  the  place  of  the  crown  in  the  governmental 
system;  for  many  centuries  they  were  fully  and  literally  true. 
Nowadays  they  have  little  or  no  practical  bearing.  The  king 
is  the  supreme  executive  only  in  name ;  he  has  very  little  to  do 
with  the  composition  of  Parliament,  and  nothing  to  do  —  ex- 
cept in  form  —  with  its  sessions  and  proceedings ;  he  occupies 
the  throne  only  by  national  sufferance  expressed  through  parlia- 
mentary enactment ;  he  has  no  control  over  the  army  and  very 
little  over  the  Church  ;  he  makes  no  laws,  levies  no  taxes,  hears  no 
cases,  and  renders  no  decisions.     The  crown  is  vastly  important, 

58 


THE   CROWN  59 

and  its  powers  are  extensive  and  steadily  increasing;  but  the 
sovereign  has  receded  into  the  background.  How  crown  and 
sovereign,  which  once  were  identical,  became  separated,  what 
the  present  difference  between  them  is,  and  what  place  each 
fills  in  the  governmental  system  will  be  taken  up  after  we  shall 
have  described  the  more  external  aspects  of  the  position  which 
the  monarch  occupies. 

Title  and  Succession  to  the  Throne.  —  Since  the  Revolu- 
tion of  1688-89  tenure  of  the  English  throne  has  been  based 
exclusively  upon  the  will  of  the  nation  as  expressed  in  parlia- 
mentary enactment.  The  statute  under  which  the  succession 
is  regulated  to-day  is  the  Act  of  Settlement,  dating  from  1701. 
It  provided  that,  in  default  of  heirs  of  William  III  and  of  Anne, 
the  crown  and  all  prerogatives  thereto  appertaining  should 
"  be,  remain,  and  continue  to  the  most  excellent  Princess  Sophia, 
and  the  heirs  of  her  body,  being  Protestants."  l  Sophia,  a 
granddaughter  of  James  I,  was  the  widow  of  a  German  prince, 
the  Elector  of  Hanover;  and  although  in  1701  she  was  not  first 
in  the  natural  order  of  succession,  she  was  first  among  the  sur- 
viving heirs  who  were  Protestants.  It  was  in  accordance  with 
this  piece  of  legislation  that,  upon  the  death  of  Anne  in  1714, 
the  throne  fell  to  George  I,  son  of  the  German  Electress.  The 
present  sovereign,  George  V,  is  the  eighth  of  the  Hanoverian 
dynasty.2  It  would,  of  course,  be  entirely  within  the  power  of 
Parliament  to  repeal  the  Act  of  Settlement  and  to  bestow  the 
crown  elsewhere ;  indeed,  Parliament  could,  if  it  wished,  abolish 
kingship  altogether.  Under  the  established  rules  of  descent 
the  sovereign's  eldest  son,  who  bears  the  title  Prince  of  Wales,3 
succeeds  when  a  vacancy  arises.     If  he  be  not  alive,  the  in- 

1  The  text  of  the  Act  of  Settlement  is  printed  in  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  528- 
531,  and  Adams  and  Stephens,  Select  Documents,  475-479.  As  safeguards  against 
dangers  which  might  conceivably  arise  from  the  accession  of  a  foreign-born  sover- 
eign the  act  stipulated  (1)  that  no  person  who  should  thereafter  come  into  posses- 
sion of  the  crown  should  go  outside  the  dominions  of  England,  Scotland,  or  Ireland 
without  consent  of  Parliament,  and  (2)  that  in  the  event  that  the  crown  should 
devolve  upon  any  person  not  a  native  of  England  the  nation  should  not  be  obliged 
to  engage  in  any  war  for  the  defense  of  any  dominions  or  territories  not  belonging 
to  the  crown  of  England,  without  consent  of  Parliament. 

2  After  the  outbreak  of  the  Great  War  in  1914  the  designation  "Hanoverian 
dynasty"  was  formally  discarded  and  the  name  "Windsor  dynasty"  was  adopted 
in  its  stead.  For  a  century  and  a  quarter  the  sovereign  of  Great  Britain  was  also 
the  ruler  of  Hanover.  At  the  accession  of  Queen  Victoria  in  1837,  however,  the 
union  ended,  because  the  law  of  Hanover  forbade  a  woman  to  ascend  the  throne 
of  that  country.  A.  W.  Ward,  Great  Britain  and  Hanover;  Some  Aspects  of  the 
Personal  Union  (Oxford,  1899). 

3  This  title  was  created  by  Edward  I  in  1301.  It  carries  no  governmental 
authority. 


60  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

heritance  passes  to  his  issue,  male  or  female.  If  there  be  none, 
the  succession  devolves  upon  the  late  sovereign's  second  son,  or 
upon  his  issue. 

No  Catholic  may  inherit,  nor  any  one  marrying  a  Catholic; 
and  the  act  of  1701  prescribed  thai  the  sovereign  should  in  all 
eases  "  join  in  communion  with  the  Church  of  England  as  by 
law  established."  If  after  his  accession  the  sovereign  should 
join  in  communion  with  the  Chun  h  of  Rome,  profess  the  ( !atholic 
religion,  or  marry  a  Catholic,  his  subjects  would  be  absolved 
from  their  allegiance.  It  is  required,  furthermore,  that  the 
sovereign  shall  take  at  his  coronation  an  oath  abjuring  the 
tenets  of  Catholicism.  Until  19 10  the  phraseology  of  this 
oath,  formulated  in  days  when  ecclesiastical  animosities  were 
still  fervid,"  was  offensive  not  only  to  Catholics  but  to  temperate- 
minded  men  of  all  faiths.  An  act  of  Parliament,  passed  in 
anticipation  of  the  coronation  of  George  V,  made  it,  however, 
less  objectionable.  The  new  sovereign  is  now  required  merely 
to  declare  "  that  he  is  a  faithful  Protestant  and  that  he  will, 
according  to  the  true  intent  of  the  enactments  which  secure  the 
Protestant  succession  to  the  throne  of  the  Realm,  uphold  and 
maintain  the  said  enactments  to  the  best  of  his  power  according 
to  law." 

The  age  of  majority  of  the  sovereign  is  eighteen.  The  con- 
stitutions of  most  monarchical  states  make  provision  for  a 
regency  in  case  of  the  sovereign's  minority  or  incapacity.  Eng- 
lish practice,  on  the  contrary,  has  been  to  provide  for  such  con- 
tingencies when  they  arise.  A  regency  can  be  created  and  a 
regent  designated  only  by  Parliament.  Parliamentary  enact- 
ments, however,  become  operative  only  upon  receiving  the 
assent  of  the  crown,  and  it  has  sometimes  happened  that  the 
sovereign  for  whom  it  was  necessary  to  appoint  a  regent  was 
incapable  of  performing  any  governmental  act.  In  such  a 
situation  there  has  usually  been  resort  to  some  legal  fiction  to 
save  appearances.  A  Regency  Act  of  181 1  defines  the  limits  of 
the  regent's  powers  and  sets  up  safeguards  for  the  interests  of 
both  the  sovereign  and  the  nation.2 

1  The  words  to  be  employed  were  originally  prescribed  in  the  .V  I  for  I .  tablish- 

ing  the  Coronation  Oath,  passed  in  the  first  year  of  William  ami  .Mary.     For  the 

text  see  Robertson,  Statutes,  Cases,  'tin!   Dixit));,,  Sec  A.  Bailey,  The 

ion  to  lln  English  Crown  (London    1879). 

-For  the  texl  of  the  Regency  Act,  a    passed  in  view  of  tin-  incapacitation  of 

George  [II,  see  Robertson,  Statui  md  Documents,  171-182.     There  is  an 

it  survey  of  the  general  subject  in  May  ami  Holland,  Constitutional  History 

of  England,  I,  Chap.  iii. 


THE   CROWN  61 

Royal  Privileges :  the  Civil  List.  —  The  sovereign  enjoys 
large  personal  immunities.  For  his  private  conduct  he  cannot 
be  called  to  account  in  any  court  of  law  or  by  any  legal  process. 
He  cannot  be  arrested,  his  goods  cannot  be  distrained,  and  as 
long  as  a  palace  remains  a  royal  residence  no  sort  of  judicial 
proceeding  against  him  can  be  executed  in  it.  He,  furthermore, 
may  own  land  and  other  property,  and  may  manage  and  dispose 
of  it  precisely  as  any  private  citizen.  The  vast  holdings  of 
property,  however,  which  at  one  time  formed  the  sovereign's 
principal  source  of  revenue,  have  become  the  possession  of  the 
state,  and  as  such  are  administered  entirely  under  the  direction 
of  Parliament.  In  lieu  of  the  income  derived  from  land  and 
other  independent  sources,  the  king  has  been  given  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  royal  household  a  fixed  annual  subsidy,  the  amount 
of  which  is  determined  afresh  at  the  beginning  of  each  reign. 
Prior  to  the  Revolution  of  1688-89  n0  distinction  was  drawn 
between  the  expenses  of  the  government  in  time  of  peace  and 
the  outlays  for  the  personal  support  and  dignity  of  the  sover- 
eign. The  money  derived  from  the  hereditary  revenues  of  the 
crown,  and  from  certain  taxes  voted  for  life  to  the  king  at  the 
beginning  of  each  reign,  was  supposed  to  provide  for  the  king 
and  his  household,  for  the  civil  government,  and  for  the  upkeep 
of  the  armed  forces  in  time  of  peace  ;  in  the  event  of  war,  special 
emergency  grants  were  forthcoming.  The  king  was  free  to  use 
for  his  personal  purposes  as  much  of  the  general  fund  as  he 
liked ;  at  all  events,  anything  that  he  could  save  in  the  expendi- 
ture upon  the  civil  government  and  the  military  establishment 
went  to  swell  his  private  purse.  The  evils  of  this  system  were 
very  apparent  under  the  later  Stuarts,  and  it  is  not  strange  that 
at  the  reestablishment  of  monarchy  upon  a  new  basis  in  1688-89 
the  opportunity  should  have  been  seized  to  introduce  a  different 
arrangement. 

The  general  principle  adopted  was  that  of  allocating  to  the 
king  a  fixed  annual  sum,  in  return  for  which  he  should  give  up 
all  rights  of  personal  control  over  the  remaining  income  of  the 
state.1  For  more  than  a  hundred  years,  however,  this  prin- 
ciple was  not  carried  out  fully  and  literally.  Thus,  the  sum 
voted  to  William  and  Mary  was  £700,000 ;  but  out  of  it  the 
sovereigns  were  to  meet  not  only  their  personal  expenses  but  the 

1  In  the  reign  of  Charles  II  Parliament  began  to  appropriate  money  for  specific 
purposes,  and  after  1688  this  became  the  general  practice.  For  a  century  the  pro- 
ceeds of  particular  taxes  were  appropriated  for  particular  ends;  but  in  1787  Pitt 
simplified  procedure  by  creating  a  Consolidated  Fund  into  which  all  revenues  were 
turned  and  from  which  all  expenditures  were  met. 


62  GOVERNMEN  1-   OF    El  R<  >PE 

costs  of  the  civil  service  and  of  pensions.  That  is  to  say,  the 
sovereign  continued  to  be  expected  to  provide  Eor  various  civil 
expenditures  out  of  his  allotment ;  and  from  the  habit  of  enumer- 
ating the  items  thus  chargeable  on  the  king's  funds  arose  the 
name  Civil  List,  nowadays  often  applied  directly  to  the  subsidy 
itself.  Originally,  too,  the  sovereign  retained  important  inde- 
pendent revenues.  George  HI,  however,  surrendered  his 
interest  in  many  of  these,  and  William  IV  gave  up  the  balance.1 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Civil  List  was  gradually  relieved  from 
all  the  charges  relating  rather  to  the  civil  government  than  to 
the  support  of  the  dignity  of  the  monarch  and  the  royal  house- 
hold ;  so  that  strictly,  the  term  "  Civil  List  "  is  now  a  misnomer. 
At  the  accession  of  Victoria  the  Civil  List  grant  was  reduced 
from  £510,000  to  £385,000,  but  the  sovereign  was  farther  re- 
lieved of  the  pension  list.  In  addition  to  annuities  payable  to 
the  children  of  the  royal  family,  the  Civil  List  of  Edward  VII 
amounted  to  €470,000,  of  which  £110,000  was  appropriated 
to  the  privy  purse  of  the  king  and  queen,  £125,000  to  salaries 
and  retiring  allowances  of  the  royal  household,  and  £193,000 
to  household  expenses.  At  the  accession  of  George  V,  in  1910, 
the  Civil  List  was  continued  in  the  sum  of  £47o,ooo.2 

"Crown''  and  "Sovereign."  —  Viewed  from  a  distance, 
English  kingship  is  imposing.  The  sovereign  dwells  in  a  splendid 
palace,  sets  the  pace  in  rich  and  cultured  social  circles,  occupies 
the  center  of  the  stage  in  solemn  and  magnificent  ceremonies, 
makes  and  receives  ostentatious  visits  to  and  from  foreign  royalty, 
and  seems  to  exercise  far-reaching  powers  of  appointment,  ad- 
ministrative control,  military  command,  lawmaking,  justice, 
and  finance.  Examined  more  closely,  however,  the  king's 
position  is  found  to  afford  peculiarly  good  illustration  of  the 
contrast  between  theory  and  fact  which  runs  so  extensively 
through  the  English  governmental  system.  On  the  social  and 
ceremonial  side,  the  king  is  quite  as  important  as  the  observer 
supposes  him  to  be;  indeed,  his  influence  in  these  directions  is 
commonly  underestimated.  But  his  control  over  public  affairs 
-  appointments,  legislation,  military  policy,  the  Church, 
finance,  foreign  relations  —  is  purely  incidental.  There  was  a 
time  when  his  power  in  these  great  fields  was  practically  ab- 
solute.    It  was  certainly  so  under  the  Tudors,  in  the  sixteenth 

1  Accuracy  requires  mention  of  the  fact  that,  by  exception,  the  sovereign  still 
enjoys  the  i  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster  and  the  Duchy  of  Cornwall,  the  latter 
being  part  of  the  appanage  of  the  Prince  <if  Wales. 

2  On  the  history  of  the  Civil  List  see  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  History 
of  England,  1,  152-175. 


THE   CROWN  63 

century.  But  the  Civil  War  cut  off  large  prerogatives,  the 
Revolution  of  1688-89  sundered  many  more,  the  apathy  and 
weakness  of  the  early  Hanoverians  cost  much,  and  the  drift 
against  royal  control  in  government  continued  strong,  even  under 
the  good  monarchs  of  the  last  hundred  years,  —  until  the  king 
now  finds  himself  literally  in  the  position  of  one  who  "  reigns 
but  does  not  govern."  Lawyers  and  students  of  political  science 
continue  to  talk  much  about  the  powers  of  the  crown;  and 
long  chapters  upon  the  subject  will  be  found  in  the  books.  This 
is  all  proper  enough.  The  powers  of  the  crown,  under  the 
English  constitution,  are  numerous,  vast,  and  of  transcendent 
importance.  The  government  could  not  run  an  hour  if  they 
were  not  exercised,  and  they  are  more  extensive  to-day  than  at 
any  time  in  the  past  two  hundred  years.  But  the  point  is  that 
the  "  crown  "  is  no  longer  the  king.  If  it  be  asked  who  or  what 
the  crown  is,  one  may  reply  in  the  delightfully  evasive  phrase  of 
Mr.  Sidney  Low  that  it  is  "  a  convenient  working  hypothesis ;  "  ' 
or  one  may  be  a  little  more  definite  by  saying  that  it  is,  in  a 
general  way,  the  supreme  executive  agency  in  the  government, 
—  once  actually  the  king  alone,  but  now  rather,  the  ministers 
and  their  subordinates,  with  the  king  as  a  sort  of  fifth  wheel  to 
the  wagon.  When  we  say  that  the  crown  appoints  practically 
all  national  public  officers  we  mean  that  ministers,  who  themselves 
are  selected  by  the  king  only  in  form,  make  these  appointments. 
When  the  king  attends  the  opening  of  a  parliament  and  reads  the 
Speech  from  the  Throne,  the  message  is  one  which  has  been 
written  by  these  same  ministers.  "  Government  "  measures 
are  continually  framed  and  executive  acts  performed  in  the 
name  of  the  crown,  though  the  king  may  personally  be  quite 
ignorant  of  them  or  even  strongly  opposed  to  them.  Two 
principles,  in  short,  reign  supreme  and  give  character  to  the 
entire  governmental  system:  (1)  the  king  shall  perform  no 
important  public  act  involving  the  exercise  of  discretion  except 
through  the  agency  of  the  ministers,  and  (2)  for  every  public 
act  performed  by  or  through  them  these  ministers  shall  be  fully 
responsible  to  Parliament.  The  king  can  "  do  no  wrong,"  be- 
cause all  of  the  acts  done  by  him  or  in  his  name  are  chargeable 
to  a  minister  or  to  the  ministry  as  a  group.  But  that  tends  to 
mean  that  the  king  can  do  nothing ;  because  ministers  cannot 
be  expected  to  shoulder  responsibility  for  acts  which  they  do 
not  themselves  originate  or  favor. 

1  Governance  of  England  (new  ed.,  1916),  255. 


64  GOVERNMENTS  OP    EI  ROPE 

The  Real  Authority  and  Service  of  the  Sovereign.  It  would 
be  erroneous,  however,  to  conclude  that  kingship  in  England  is 
obsolete  and  unimportant,  or  even  that  the  king  has  do  real 
influence  in  the  government.  Americans  arc  likely  to  wonder 
why  an  institution  which  seems  so  completely  to  have  outlived 
it-  usefulness  has  not  been  abolished;  and  Englishmen  arc  free 
to  admit  that  if  they  did  not  actually  have  a  royal  hour  they 
would  hardly  set  about  establishing  one.  None  the  less,  the  uses 
served  by  the  monarch  arc  considerable;  his  influence  upon  the 
course  of  public  affairs  may,  indeed,  be  great.  In  the  oft-quoted 
phrase  of  Bagehot,  the  sovereign  has  three  rights  —  the  right  to 
be  consulted,  the  right  to  encourage,  and  the  right  to  warn. 
"'  A  king  of  great  sense  and  sagacity,"  it  is  added,  "  would  want 
no  others."  l  Despite  the  fact  that  during  upwards  of  two 
hundred  years  the  sovereign  has  not  attended  the  meetings  of 
the  cabinet,  and  hence  is  deprived  of  opportunity  to  wield 
influence  directly  upon  the  deliberations  of  the  ministers  as  a 
body,  he  keeps  in  close  touch  with  the  premier,  and  cabinet 
meetings  at  which  important  policies  are  to  be  formulated  are 
frequently  preceded  by  a  conference  in  which  the  subject  in 
hand  is  threshed  out  more  or  less  completely  by  king  and  chief 
minister.  Merely  because  the  ancient  relation  has  been  re- 
versed, so  that  now  it  is  the  king  who  advises  and  the  ministry 
that  arrives  at  decisions,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  advisory 
function  is  an  unimportant  thing. 

Queen  Victoria  many  times  wielded  decisive  influence  upon 
the  public  measures  of  her  reign,  especially  in  connection  with 
the  conduct  of  foreign  relations.  She  called  Lord  Palmerston 
sharply  to  account  in  1850  because  the  Foreign  Office  was  not 
showing  her  due  regard.  "  The  Queen  requires,  first,"  —  so 
ran  the  famous  memorandum  sent  to  her  somewhat  supercilious 
foreign  secretary  —  "  that  Lord  Palmerston  will  distinctly  state 
what  he  proposes  in  a  given  case,  in  order  that  the  Queen  may 
know  as  distinctly  to  what  she  is  giving  her  royal  sanction. 
Secondly,  having  once  given  her  sanction  to  such  a  measure, 
that  it  be  not  arbitrarily  altered  or  modified  by  the  minister.  .  .  . 
She  expects  to  be  kept  informed  of  what  passes  between  him  and 
the  foreign  ministers,  before  important  de<  isions  arc  taken 
based  upon  that  intercourse;  to  receive  tin  foreign  dispatches 
in  good  time;  and  to  have  the  drafts  for  her  approval  sent  to 
her  in  sufficient  time  to  make'  herself  acquainted  with  the  con- 

1  English  Constitution  (rev.  ed.),  143. 


THE   CROWN  65 

tents  before  they  must  be  sent  off."  l  During  the  troubled  later 
years  of  Louis  Philippe  the  Queen  practically  prevented  war  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  France ;  and  on  the  advice  of  the 
Prince  Consort,  she,  in  i860,  caused  Lord  John  Russell's  per- 
emptory dispatch  on  the  Trent  affair  to  be  softened,  and  thereby 
quite  possibly  averted  war  with  the  United  States.2 

Edward  VII,  coming  to  the  throne  in  1901,  when  his  country 
was  suffering  from  unpopularity  in  Europe  engendered  by  the 
South  African  war,  contributed  powerfully  by  his  visits  on  the 
continent  and  by  his  entertainment  of  foreign  dignitaries  to  the 
turn  of  events  which  brought  England  into  a  close  understanding 
with  France  in  1904  and  with  Russia  three  years  later.  Further- 
more —  while  the  extent  of  his  influence  on  domestic  affairs  is 
less  measurable  —  he  is  known  to  have  approved  and  encouraged 
the  Haldane  army  reforms,  to  have  sought  to  dissuade  the 
House  of  Lords  from  rejecting  the  Lloyd  George  budget  of  1909, 
and  to  have  discouraged  the  raising,  in  any  form,  of  the  issue  of 
the  reorganization  of  the  upper  chamber.  In  other  words,  while 
as  a  constitutional  monarch  content  to  remain  in  the  back- 
ground of  political  controversy,  this  king  not  only  had  opinions 
but  did  not  hesitate  to  make  them  known ;  and  in  the  shaping 
and  execution  of  the  Liberal  program  his  advice  was  undoubtedly 
at  times  a  factor  of  importance.  Unlike  Queen  Victoria,  who 
seldom  saw  the  ministers,  but  trusted  rather  to  correspondence, 
King  Edward  was  always  accessible  to  the  ministers  and  en- 
joyed discussing  public  matters  in  a  direct  and  informal  way 
with  them.3  His  successor,  George  V,  has  been  similarly  active, 
in  relation  especially  to  the  Irish  question  and  to  the  issues  of 
the  Great  War,  even  going  so  far  upon  one  occasion  as  to  call  a 
conference  of  party  leaders  with  a  view  to  a  compromise  on  the 
Irish  situation.4 

Why  Monarchy  Survives.  —  Monarchy  in  Great  Britain  is  a 
strong  and,  so  far  as  can  be  foreseen,  a  lasting  institution.  Through- 

*T.  Martin,  Life  of  His  Royal  Highness,  the  Prince  Consort  (London,  1875-80), 
II,  306. 

2  The  influence  exerted  by  the  successive  sovereigns  from  George  III  to  Vic- 
toria is  described  at  length  in  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  History  of  England, 
I,  Chaps,  i-ii. 

3  The  most  satisfactory  estimate  of  the  political  and  governmental  activities  of 
Edward  VII  is  contained  in  Mr.  Sidney  Lee's  memoir  of  the  king,  printed  in  the 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  Second  Supplement  (London  and  New  York, 
1912),  I,  546-610.  See  also  Viscount  Esher,  The  Influence  of  King  Ed-ward,  and 
Essays  on  Other  Subjects  (London,  1915). 

4  S.  Brooks,  "The  King  and  the  War,"  in  Nineteenth  Cent.,  May,  1918;  London 
Times  Illus.  Hist,  and  Encyc.  of  the  War,  Pt.  225  (1918). 


66  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

out  the  tempestuous  years  [909  1 1.  when  the  nation  was  aroused 
as  it  had  not  Urn  in  generations  upon  the  issue  <>i  constitu- 
tional reform,  and  when  every  sort  of  project  was  warmly  ad- 
vocated and  as  warmly  opposed,  without  exception  every 
suggested  program  took  for  granted  the  perpetuation  of  mon- 
archy as  an  integral  part  of  the  governmental  system.  In 
the  general  bombardment  to  which  the  hereditary  Hon 
Lords  was  subjected  hereditary  kingship  wholly  escaped.  The 
reasons  are  numerous  and  complex.  They  arise  in  part,  although 
by  no  means  so  largely  as  is  sometimes  imagined,  from  the  fact 
that  monarchy  in  England  is  a  venerable  institution,  and  the 
innate  conservatism  of  the  Englishman,  while  permitting  him 
from  time  to  time  to  regulate  and  modify  it,  restrains  him  from 
doing  anything  so  revolutionary  as  to  abolish  it.  That  upon 
certain  conspicuous  occasions,  as  in  the  Cromwellian  period, 
and  again  in  1688,  kingship  has  owed  its  very  life  to  the  con- 
servative instinct  of  the  English  people  is  well  enough  known  to 
every  student  of  history.  But  to-day,  as  ever,  the  institution 
rests  upon  a  basis  very  much  more  substantial  than  a  mere 
national  predilection. 

Monarchy  remains  impregnably  intrenched  because  it  fulfills 
specific  ends  which  are  universally  recognized  to  be  eminently 
worth  while,  if  not  indispensable.  As  a  social,  moral,  and 
ceremonial  agency,  and  as  a  visible  symbol  of  the  unity  of  the 
nation,  and  especially  of  the  Empire,  king  and  court  occupy  an 
immeasurable  place  in  the  life  and  thought  of  the  people ;  and 
even  within  the  domain  of  government,  to  employ  the  figure  of 
Lowell,  if  the  crown  is  no  longer  the  motive  power  of  the  ship 
of  state,  it  is  the  spar  on  which  the  sail  is  bent,  and  as  such  it  is 
not  only  a  useful  but  an  essential  part  of  the  vessel.1  The 
entire  governmental  order  of  Great  Britain  hinges  upon  the 
cabinet  system  ;  and  nowhere  has  that  system  been  reduced 
to  satisfactory  operation  without  the  presence  of  some  central, 
but  essentially  detached,  figure,  whether  a  king  or,  as  in  France, 
a  president  with  most  of  the  attributes  of  kingship.  It  is  because 
the  English  people  have  discovered  that  kingship  is  not  neces- 
sarily incompatible  with  popular  government  that  the  monarchy 
has  survived.  If  royalty  had  been  found  standing  in  the  path 
of  democratic  progress,  it  is  inconceivable  that  all  the  forces  of 
tradition  could  have  pulled  it  through  the  past  seventy-five  or 
eighty  years.  As  it  is,  while  half  a  century  ago  a  small  republican 
group  was  fond  of  urging  that  the  monarchy  was  only  a  source 
1  Government  of  England,  I,  49. 


THE   CROWN  67 

of  needless  expense,   to-day  there  is   hardly   a   trace  of  anti- 
monarchical  sentiment  in  any  section  of  society. 

Before  turning  from  this  branch  of  our  subject,  let  us  consider 
what  a  scholarly  English  writer,  Mr.   Edward  Jenks,  has  to 
say  of  the  uses  of  kingship  in  his  country.     "  In  the  first  place," 
he  writes,  "  the  king  supplies  the  vital  element  of  personal  in- 
terest to  the  proceedings  of  government.     It  is  far  easier  for  the 
average  man  to  realize  a  person  than  an  institution.     Even  in 
the  United  Kingdom,  only  the  educated  few  have  any  real  ap- 
preciation of  such  abstract  things  as  Parliament,  the  cabinet, 
or  even  '  the  crown.'     But  the  vast  mass  of  the  people  are  deeply 
interested  in  the  king  as  a  person,  as  is  proved  by  the  crowds 
which  collect  whenever  there  is  a  chance  of   seeing  him ;    and 
it  is  possible  that  the  majority  of  the  people,  even  of  the  United 
Kingdom,  to  say  nothing  of  the  millions  of  India,  believe  that 
the  government  of  the  Empire  is  carried  on  by  the  king  per- 
sonally.    He  therefore  supplies   the  personal  and  picturesque 
element  which  catches  the  popular  imagination  far  more  readily 
than  constitutional  arrangements,   which   cannot  be  heard  or 
seen;    and  a  king  or  queen  who  knows  how  to  play  this  part 
skillfully,  by  a  display  of  tact,  graciousness,  and  benevolence, 
is  rendering  priceless  services  to  the  cause  of  contentment  and 
good  government.  .  .  .     Very   closely   allied   to    this  personal 
character  of  the  king  is  the  great  unofficial  and  social  influence 
which  he  wields,  and  not  he  alone,  but  the  queen,  and,  in  a  lesser 
degree,  the  other  members  of  the  royal  family.     Their  influence 
in  matters  of  religion,  morality,  benevolence,  fashion,  and  even 
in_ar_t ;  and  literature,  is  immense.  .  .  .     How  much  good  was 
done  in  this  way  by  the  late  Queen  Victoria,  is  a  matter  of 
common  knowledge ;    it  was  one  of  the  striking  triumphs  of  her 
long  reign.     And,  be  it  remembered,  in  such  matters  the  mon- 
arch is  in  no  way  bound  to  follow,  or  even  to  seek,  the  advice  of 
his  ministers ;  for  such  matters  lie  outside  the  domain  of  politics. 
...     A  king  who  is  fully  informed  of  affairs  becomes,  in  course 
of  time,  if  he  is  an  able  man,  an  unrivaled  storehouse  of  political 
experience.     Ministers  come  and  go ;  they  are  swayed,  it  is  to 
be  feared,  by  the  interests  of  their  party  as  well  as  by  those  of 
the  state ;    they  may  have  had  to  make,  in  order  to  obtain  sup- 
port, bargains  which  tie  their  hands;  they  have  ambitions  for 
the  future,  which  they  are  loath  to  jeopardize.     Not  so  the  king. 
He  is  permanent ;  he  is  above  all  parties ;  he  does  not  bargain 
for  places  and  honors ;  he  has  nothing  in  the  way  of  ambition 
to  satisfy,  except  the  noble  ambition  of  securing  his  country's 


68  GOVERNMEN  is   OF    El  ROPE 

welfare  So  he  ran  say  to  his  ministers,  with  all  the  weight  of 
hi-,  experience  and  position  :  '  Yes,  I  will,  if  you  insist,  do  as  you 
wish;  but,  1  warn  you.  you  are  doing  a  rash  thing.  Do  you 
remember  so  and  so?  '  Only,  the  king  must  not  give  his  warn 
ing  in  public  ;  he  must  not  seem  to  overrule  his  ministers.  But  a 
minister  will,  unless  he  is  an  exceptionally  rash  person,  think 
many  times  before  disregarding  a  warning  from  the  king."  ' 

Powers  of  the  Crown:  Sources  and  Development.  It  has 
been  stated  that  the  powers  of  the  crown  are  numerous,  vast, 
and  of  transcendent  importance,  and  it  has  been  explained  that 
whereas  they  were  once  exercised  fully  and  freely  by  the  king 
himself,  nowadays  they  rest  in  the  hands  of  the  ministers,  who 
wield  them  with  practically  no  restraint  from  the  nominal  ruler. 
It  remains  to  point  out  how  these  powers  arose,  how  they  change 
from  generation  to  generation  and  almost  from  year  to  year. 
and  what  they  are  at  the  present  time.  In  the  succeeding 
chapter,  the  nature  of  the  authority  that  carries  them  into  effect, 
i.e.,  the  ministry,  will  he  duly  considered. 

Speaking  broadly,  the  powers  of  the  crown  are  of  dual  origin : 
custom,  or  "prerogative,"  and  parliamentary  definition  or 
grant.  Powers  of  a  statutory  character  are,  as  a  rule,  definite 
and  easily  measurable.  But  those  that  How  from  the  preroga- 
tive are  in  many  cases  difficult  to  bring  into  clear  view.  The 
prerogative  is  defined  by  Dicey  as  "  the  residue  of  discretionary 
or  arbitrary  authority  which  at  any  time  is  legally  left  in  the 
hands  of  the  crown."  2  The  elements  of  it  are  to  be  ascertained, 
not  from  statutes  but  from  precedents,  and  its  sources,  as  enu- 
merated by  Anson,  are  (i)  the  residue  of  the  executive  power 
which  the  king  in  the  early  stages  of  English  history  possi 
in  all  of  the  branches  of  government;  (2)  survivals  of  the  power 
once  accruing  to  the  king  as  the  feudal  chief  of  the  country; 
and  (,s)  attributes  with  which  the  crown  has  been  invested  by 
legal  theory,  e.g.,  the  attribute  of  perpetuity  popularly  expressed 
in  the  aphorism  "  the  king  never  dies,"  and  that  of  perfection  of 

1  Government  of  the  British  Empire,  37-40.  The  besl  brief  discussions  of  the 
position  of  the  sovereign  in  the  ment  of 
England,  I.  Chap,  i;  Moran,  English  Government,  Chaps,  ii  iii;  Marriott,  English 
Political  Institutions,  Chap,  iii;    and  Low,  Governance  of  England,  Chaps. 

More  extended  treatment  <>f  the  subject  will  be  Found  in  Anson,  Law  <md  Custom 
of  the  Constitution.  II,  I't.  i,  Chaps,  i  and  i\  ;  Todd,  Parliamentary  Government  in 
nd,  I,  Pt.  ii;  and  Bagehot,  English  Constitution.  Chaps,  ii— iii.  Mention 
may  be  made  1  1"  \.  Caudel,  "Le  s<>u\<rain  anglais,"  in  Ann.  des  Set.  Polit.,  July, 
1910,  and  J.  Bardoux,  "Le  pouvoir  politique  de  la  couronne  anglaise,"  in  Bee. 
des  Deux  Mondes,  May  r^.  1911. 

2  Law  of  the  Constitution  \?.o. 


THE  CROWN  6o 

judgment,  similarly  expressed  in  the  saying  "  the  king  can  do 
no  wrong.' '  1  The  element  in  the  prerogative  which  bulks 
largest  is  undoubtedly  that  which  Anson  mentions  first,  i.e., 
the  power  which  the  king  carried  over,  in  the  teeth  of  the  popu- 
larization of  the  governmental  system,  from  days  when  the  royal 
authority  was  not  hedged  about  as  it  has  been  since  the  seven- 
teenth century.  It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  many  powers 
of  the  crown  as  they  exist  to-day  represent  original  prerogative 
modified  by  parliamentary  enactment ;  so  that  in  many  instances 
it  becomes  difficult  to  determine  whether  a  given  power  exists 
by  virtue  of  a  statute,  by  which  it  is  absolutely  defined,  or  by 
virtue  of  an  anterior  prerogative,  which  may  be  capable  of  being 
stretched  or  interpreted  more  or  less  arbitrarily.  No  principle 
of  the  working  constitution  is  more  solidly  established  than  that 
the  prerogative  of  the  crown  may  be  defined,  restricted,  or  ex- 
tended by  act  of  Parliament. 

From  what  has  been  said  it  follows  that  the  powers  of  the  crown 
are  in  constant  flux :  they  are  always,  and  at  the  same  time, 
being  diminished  and  increased.  Historically,  they  have  been 
reduced  in  three  principal  ways.  The  first  is  great  contractual 
agreements  between  king  and  people,  best  illustrated  by  Magna 
Carta  and  the  Petition  of  Right.  The  second  is  prohibitive 
legislation,  of  such  character  as  that  which  put  an  end  to  sus- 
pending or  dispensing  with  laws,  debasing  the  coinage,  purvey- 
ance, preemption,  and  many  other  prerogatives.  The  third  is 
simple  disuse,  illustrated  by  the  lapse,  since  the  Tudor  period, 
of  the  power  of  the  crown  to  add  to  the  membership  of  the 
House  of  Commons  by  arbitrary  enfranchisement  of  boroughs. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  crown's  powers  have  been  steadily 
augmented  both  by  custom  and  by  legislation,  particularly,  in 
recent  centuries,  the  latter.  When,  for  example,  Parliament 
adds  an  air  service  to  the  army,  establishes  a  system  of  old  age 
pensions,  or  authorizes  a  new  tax,  it  imposes  fresh  duties  of 
administration  upon  the  crown  and  thereby  perceptibly  en- 
larges the  volume  of  its  power ;  or  the  grant  may  look  to  the 
exercise  of  legislative  rather  than  executive  functions,  by  means 
of  the  device  of  "  statutory  orders,"  to  be  presently  explained. 
It  is  mainly  on  account  of  the  enormous  expansion  of  the  func- 
tions and  activities  of  government  in  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth 
centuries,  entailing  steady  accessions  of  power,  that  Lowell  is 
ab.le  to  conclude  his  discussion  of  this  subject  with  the  following 
striking  words :    "  All  told,  the  executive  authority  of  the  crown 

*  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  II,  Pt.  i,  3-5. 


70  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

is.  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  very  wide,  far  wider  than  thai  of  the 
chief  magistrate  in  many  countries,  and  well-nigh  as  extensive 
as  that  now  possessed  by  the  monarch  in  any  government  not 
an  absolute  despotism  ;   and  although  the  crown  has  no  inherenl 

legislative  power  except  in  conjunction  with  Parliament,  it  has 
been  given  by  statute  very  large  powers  of  subordinate  legis- 
lation. .  .  .     Since  the  accession  of  the  House  of  Hanover  the 

new  powers  conferred  upon  the  crown  by  statute  have  probably 
more  than  made  up  for  the  loss  to  the  prerogative  of  powers 
which  have  either  been  restricted  by  the  same  process  or  become 
obsolete  by  disuse.  By  far  the  greater  part  of  the  prerogative, 
as  it  existed  at  that  time,  has  remained  legally  vested  in  the 
crown,  and  can  be  exercised  to-day."  ' 

Powers  of  the  Crown  Classified.  -  The  powers  of  the  crown 
to-day  fall  into  two  principal  groups,  according  as  they  are 
executive  or  legislative.  Nothing  less  than  a  chapter  would 
serve  to  enumerate  and  explain  the  executive  powers  in  all  of 
their  ramifications.  It  must  serve,  however,  to  say  that  the 
most  important  of  them  are:  (i)  appointment,  directly  or  in- 
directly, of  all  national  public  officers,  except  some  of  the  officials 
of  the  parliamentary  chambers  and  a  few  unimportant  hereditary 
dignitaries;  (2)  removal,  upon  occasion,  of  all  appointed  officers 
except  judges,  members  of  the  Council  of  India,  and  the  Comp- 
troller and  Auditor  General;  (3)  execution  of  all  laws  and  super- 
vision of  the  executive  machinery  of  the  state  throughout  all 
of  its  branches;  (4)  expenditure  of  public  money  in  accordance 
with  appropriations  voted  by  Parliament ;  (5)  granting,  in  so 
far  as  not  prohibited  by  statute,  of  charters  of  incorporation ; 

(6)  creating  of  all  peers  and  conferring  of  all  titles  and  honors ; 

(7)  coining  money;  (8)  summoning  of  Convocation  and,  by 
reason  of  the  king's  headship  of  the  Established  Church,  virtual 
appointment  of  the  archbishops,  bishops,  and  most  of  the  deans 
and  canons;  (9)  supreme  command  of  the  army  and  navy; 
(10)  representing  the  nation  in  all  of  its  dealings  with  foreign 
powers,  including  the  appointment  of  all  diplomatic  and  consular 
agents  and  the  negotiation  of  treaties;  -    and  (11)  supervision  or 

ind,  T,  26. 
I  I-  re  i  no  qu<  tion  <>f  the  power  of  the  crown  to  negotiate  treaties;  llu-ir 
ratification  and  execution  is  a  different  matter.  Prior  to  the  Greaf  War,  Parlia- 
ment had  little  to  do,  directly,  with  treaty-making.  It  mighl  refuse  to  Vote  sup- 
plies, or  it  might  pass  resolutions  condemning  the  ( lovernment's  policy.  But  unless, 
as  in  ti  the  Anglo-German  convention  of  1890  ceding  Heligoland  and  the 

French  convention  of  1004  relating  to  Morocco  and  Egypt,  a  treaty  con- 
tained an  express  provision  for  its  submission  to  Parliament,  ratification  was  usu- 
ally by  the  Government,  i.e.,  the  ministry,  itself,  not  by  the  two  houses.     Even 


THE   CROWN  71 

control  over  local  government,  education,  public  health,  pauper- 
ism, housing,  and  a  wide  variety  of  other  social  and  industrial 
matters. 

A  second  general  group  of  powers  pertains  to  legislation. 
Technically,  all  legislative  authority  is  vested  in  "  the  king  in 
Parliament,"  which  means  the  king  acting  in  collaboration  with 
the  two  houses.  Parliament  transacts  business  only  during  the 
pleasure  of  the  crown.  The  crown  summons  and  prorogues 
the  houses,  and  it  can  at  any  time  dissolve  the  House  of  Commons. 
No  parliamentary  act,  furthermore,  is  valid  without  the  crown's 
assent. 

It  is,  none  the  less,  on  the  legislative,  rather  than  the  ex- 
ecutive, side  that  the  greatest  losses  of  the  crown  have  been 
suffered.  There  was  a  time,  before  the  rise  of  Parliament, 
when  the  crown  possessed  practically  unlimited  law-making 
power.  As  Parliament  gradually  gathered  strength,  the  legis- 
lative self-sufficiency  of  the  crown  was  undermined.  For  a 
long  time  after  the  general  principle  of  parliamentary  control 
over  legislation  was  established,  the  crown  clung  to  the  right 
of  issuing  proclamations  and  ordinances  with  the  force  of  law. 
But  after  the  Tudor  period,  even  this  prerogative  had  to  be  given 
up.  Nowadays  the  crown  has,  apart  from  Parliament,  no  in- 
herent legislative  power  whatever,  save  in  the  crown  colonies.1 
It  cannot  independently  suspend  or  dispense  with  laws ;  it 
cannot  alter  them  in  the  slightest  particular;  it  is  practically 
obliged  to  approve  and  accept  every  law  passed  by  Parliament ; 2 
and  it  cannot  itself  make  law.  It  is  true  that  great  numbers  of 
ordinances  —  "  orders  in  council  "  -  continue  to  be  promul- 
gated. But  these  involve  no  infraction  of  the  general  rule. 
Orders  in  council  are  of  two  kinds.  The  first  is  orders  which 
are  in  the  nature  of  administrative  rules  or  instructions,  pre- 

treaties  involving  (as  did  the  treaty  of  Paris  in  1783)  cessions  of  territory  were  han- 
dled in  this  manner.  It  is  therefore  noteworthy  that  the  treaty  with  Germany 
drawn  up  at  Paris  in  1919  was  laid  before  Parliament  in  its  entirety,  and  that  only 
after  being  explained,  debated,  and  voted  upon  there  was  the  king's  signature  at- 
tached and  ratification  notified  to  the  world.  There  is  a  strong  presumption  that 
Parliament's  control  over  treaty-making  has  thus  been  permanently  augmented. 
Cf .  p.  80  below. 

1  H.  Jenkyns,  British  Ride  and  Jurisdiction  Beyond  the  Seas  (Oxford,   1902), 

4-6,  95- 

2  The  power  to  withhold  assent  from  a  measure  passed  by  Parliament  has  not 
been  exercised  since  1707,  when  Queen  Anne  vetoed  a  bill  for  settling  the  militia 
in  Scotland.  Under  the  cabinet  system  of  government  there  is  no  need  of  a  formal 
veto  power,  and  it  is  a  debatable  question  whether  this  prerogative  may  not  be  re- 
garded as  having  been  extinguished  by  disuse.  But  see  Lowell,  Government  of 
England,  I,  26,  and  "Auditor  Tantum,"  "The  Veto  of  the  Crown,"  in  Fortn.  Rev., 
Sept.,  1913. 


72  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

scribing  in  detail  the  methods  by  which  the  government's  busi- 
ness shall  be  carried  on.  A  good  example  is  afforded  by  the 
inland  revenue  regulations,  or  the  rules  governing  examinations 
for  the  civil  service.  These  orders,  being  mere  administrative 
regulations  and  nol  laws,  can  be,  and  arc,  promulgated  by  the 
crown  independently.  The  second  kind  of  orders  comprises 
such  as  have  the  character  of  true  law.  These,  also,  are  pro 
mulgated  by  the  crown,  —  to  be  entirely  ace  urate,  by  the  crown 
in  council  —  but  only  by  virtue  of  authority  expressly  conferred 
by  Parliament.  Accordingly,  they  are  known  as  "statutory 
orders."  Some  of  these  orders  take  effeel  at  once  and  are  later 
reported  to  Parliament  merely  as  a  matter  of  form  ;  others  are 
suspended  for  a  period  to  allow  Parliament  an  opportunity  to 
disallow  them  if  it  chooses.  In  any  event,  they  partake  of  the 
character  of  legislation  —  "  a  species  of  subordinate  legisJation," 
Lowell  terms  them.  But  the  point  is  that  in  issuing  them  the 
crown  acts  entirely  by  delegated,  not  inherent,  authority. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  MINISTERS  AND  THE  ADMINISTRATIVE  SYSTEM 

Composition  of  the  Ministry.  —  It  has  been  made  clear  that 
the  vast  and  growing  powers  of  the  crown  are  no  longer  wielded 
by  the  sovereign  in  person.  Rather,  they  are  exercised  by 
ministers  whom  he  does  not  choose  (except  in  form)  and  over 
whose  acts  he  has  no  positive  control.  The  ministry  therefore 
becomes  the  actual  working  executive,  or  at  all  events  the 
directing  and  controlling  part  of  the  executive;  and  as  such  it 
includes  the  heads  of  all  principal  departments,  some  or  all  of 
the  members  of  various  boards,  a  considerable  group  of  under- 
secretaries (assistant  secretaries,  we  should  call  them  in  the 
United  States1),  certain  party  "whips,"  a  few  officers  of  the 
royal  household,  and  some  dignitaries  who  really  have  little  or 
no  administrative  work  to  perform.  Nominally  they  are  selected 
and  appointed  by  the  king  ;  but  actually  they  owe  their  positions 
to  the  chief,  or  "  prime,"  minister,  whose  highly  important 
functions  will  be  described  presently.  The  thing  that  chiefly 
distinguishes  a  minister  from  any  other  member  of  the  executive 
service  is  his  direct  responsibility  to  Parliament ;  and  the  minis- 
try may  be  defined  as  the  group  of  higher  executive  officials  who 
are  obligated  by  rigorous  custom  to  resign  office  if  Parliament 
(strictly  speaking,  the  House  of  Commons)  deliberately  with- 
holds approval  of  their  policy.  The  ministers  may  therefore  be 
said  to  have  a  political  character  not  possessed  by  the  mass 
of  the  executive  and  administrative  officers,  who  belong  rather 
to  the  permanent  civil  service  and  are  not  affected  in  their  tenure 
by  the  ups  and  downs  of  party  politics.  The  number  of  ministers 
in  the  years  immediately  preceding  the  Great  War  fluctuated 
around  sixty.  Approximately  one  third  of  them  formed  the 
inner  circle  known  as  the  cabinet,  whose  importance  is  such  that 
it  will  be  dealt  with  at  length  in  a  succeeding  chapter.  During 
the  war  period  many  new  ministries  were  created,  and  although 

'The  term  "under-secretary"  has,  however,  been  introduced  in  this  country. 
An  Under-Secretary  of  State  was  provided  for  by  act  of  Congress  in  1919. 

73 


:\  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

some  have  already  been  abolished,  il  is  probable  that  the  group 
will  become  permanently  from  a  fourth  to  a  third  larger  than 
in  1914.1 

As  is  true  in  all  governments,  the  work  of  administration  is 
directed  and  carried  on  mainly  in  certain  great  executive  depart- 
ments; and  most  of  the  ministers  —  although  with  some  very 
important  exceptions  —  are  in  charge  of,  or  otherwise  attached 
to,  these  departments.  In  the  United  States,  the  ten  executive 
departments  of  the  federal  government  stand  on  a  common  foot- 
ing and  bear  much,  resemblance  one  to  another.  All  have  been 
created  by  act  of  Congress;  all  are  presided  over  by  officials 
known  as  secretaries  ;  all  stand  in  substantially  the  same  relation 
to  the  president  and  to  Congress.  The  executive  departments 
in  most  continental  governments  likewise  present  a  generally 
logical  and  symmetrical  appearance.2  The  English  departments, 
however,  are  very  heterogeneous.  In  practically  all  cases,  it  is 
true,  they  are  actually  presided  over  by  a  single  responsible 
minister,  assisted  by  one  or  more  under-secretaries  and  by  a 
greater  or  lesser  body  of  non-political  officials  who  carry  on  the 
routine  work  and  whose  tenure  is  not  affected  by  the  political 
fortunes  of  their  chiefs.  But  some  of  the  departments,  notably 
the  Treasury  and  the  Admiralty,  represent  survivals  of  the 
great  offices  of  state  of  earlier  centuries ;  six,  i.e.,  Foreign  Affairs, 
Home  Affairs,  War,  Colonies,  India,  and  Air,  are  offshoots  of  the 
ancient  "  secretariat  of  state  "  ;  some,  as  the  Board  of  Trade 
and  the  Board  of  Education,  have  sprung  from  committees  of 
the  Privy  Council ;  still  others  are  ministries,  boards,  or  com- 
missions established  outright  in  recent  decades,  such  as  the 
Board  of  Works  and  the  Board  of  Agriculture  of  a  generation 
ago  and  the  Ministry  of  Health  and  the  Ministry  of  Transport 
created  at  the  close  of  the  Great  War.  There  is  no  less  diversity 
of  organization  than  of  origins,  and  no  description  can  be  under- 
taken save  of  the  principal  departments  one  by  one.3 

The  Treasury. — The  oldest  department,  the  one  that  ex- 
ercises largest  control  over  the  others,  and  by  far  the  most 
important  of  them  all,  is  the  Treasury.  The  origins  of  the 
Treasury  are  to  be  sought  in  the  Exchequer,  or  revenue  office, 
of  the  Norman  kings,  which  in  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  cen- 
turies gradually  passed  into  the  hands  of  a  special  official,  the 

1  See  p.  86. 

2  On  the  French  executive  departments  seep.  400. 

8 A  convenient  outline  of  the  administrative  system  is  R.  II.  Gretton,  The 
Kings  Government;   a  Study  of  the  Growth  of  the  Central  Administration  (London, 

IQI3)- 


THE   MINISTERS   AND   ADMINISTRATIVE   SYSTEM     75 

Treasurer,  later  designated  the  Lord  High  Treasurer.1  By- 
Tudor  times,  the  Lord  Treasurer  was  a  very  powerful  official, 
and  in  161 2  James  I  tried  the  experiment  of  putting  the  office 
"  in  commission  " ;  that  is,  he  bestowed  it,  not  upon  an  in- 
dividual, but  upon  a  board  of  Lords  Commissioners  of  His 
Majesty's  Treasury,  with,  however,  a  certain  primacy  in  the 
"  First  Lord."  The  last  Lord  High  Treasurer  was  appointed 
by  Queen  Anne,  in  her  expiring  moments,  in  17 14;  and  from 
that  date  the  office  has  continuously  been  in  commission.  The 
duties  connected  with  it  are  assigned  to  a  Treasury  Board  of 
five  members,  and  even  the  title  of  Lord  High  Treasurer  has 
become  extinct.  For  a  time  the  sovereign  attended  meetings 
of  the  Board,  but  George  III  abandoned  the  practice,  and 
control  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  First  Lord,  who  was  usually 
also  the  prime  minister. 

The  nineteenth  century  brought  farther  important  develop- 
ments. After  1825  the  Board  gradually  ceased  to  transact 
•  business  in  a  collective  capacity,  and  nowadays  it  never  meets. 
In  1849  an  act  °f  Parliament  provided  that  documents,  includ- 
ing requisitions  for  money,  issuing  from  the  Treasury  should 
be  regarded  as  valid  if  signed  by  any  two  of  the  five  Lords. 
Furthermore,  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  an  official  (dat- 
ing from  the  thirteenth  century)  who  had  been  gradually  gaining 
in  importance,  now  rose  to  second  rank  nominally,  and  first 
rank  actually,  in  the  department.  To-day,  therefore,  the  situa- 
tion is  substantially  this.  The  First  Lord,  the  nominal  head, 
is,  as  a  rule,  the  premier.  He  has  actual  control  over  several 
outlying  departments  which  have  no  political  chiefs  of  their 
own,  but  only  such  control  over  financial  work  as  his  general 
responsibilities  as  head  of  the  Government  of  the  day  entail. 
The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  draws  up  the  annual  budget, 
embodying  a  statement  of  the  proposed  expenditures  of  the 
year  and  a  program  of  taxation  calculated  to  produce  the 
requisite  revenue,  and  performs  other  important  functions  of 
the  Treasury,  being  also,  as  a  rule,  the  Government  leader  in 
the  House  of  Commons  if  the  prime  minister  is  in  the  House  of 
Lords  or  unable  to  act.  Curiously  enough,  however,  he  is  no 
longer  in  charge  of  the  Exchequer.  Rather,  the  Exchequer  and 
Audit  Department,  which  directly  supervises  the  collection  of 

1  The  workings  of  the  early  Exchequer  are  described  in  the  Dialogus  Scaceario 
("Dialogue  of  the  Exchequer"),  written  by  Bishop  Richard  of  London  in  the  twelfth 
century.  There  is  an  edition  of  this  treatise  by  A.  Hughes,  C.  G.  Crump,  and  C. 
Johnson  (Oxford,  1902).  The  standard  history  is  T.  Madox,  History  and  Antiqui- 
ties of  the  Exchequer  (London,  1711). 


76  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

the  revenue  and  the  disbursement  of  money,  is  presided  over  by 
the  Comptroller  and  Auditor-General;  and   the  departmenl    i 
n,,i  strictly  a  part  of  the  Treasury  at  all,  the  Eunctions  o\  the 
latter,  as  discharged  by  the  misnamed  Chancellor  of  tin    I 
chequer,  being  direction  and  policy  Framing,  not  actual  admini 
(ration. 

Subordinate  to  the  Treasury  arc  the  four  great  offices  through 
which  revenue  is  collected,  i.e.,  the  Post  Office.  Customs,  In- 
land Revenue,  and  Woods,  Forests,  and  Land  Revenues.  The 
Post  office  is  presided  over  by  a  responsible  minister,  who  is 
sometimes  included  in  the  cabinet;  the  other  services  are  in 
the  hands  of  boards  of  commissioners,  whose  members  belong 
to  the  permanent  civil  service  and  are  represented  in  Parlia 
ment  only  by  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  or  his  deputy, 
the  Financial  Secretary  to  the  Treasury.  A  number  of  out- 
lying departments  whose  supervision  is  not  otherwise  provided 
for  are  to  some  extent  subject  to  Treasury  control. 

Formerly  the  proceeds  of  various  taxes  were  paid  into  separate 
accounts  at  the  Exchequer,  and  Parliament  charged  particular 
outlays  upon  each.     This  system  was  wasteful  and  otherwise 
unsatisfactory  ;  one  fund  might  be  inadequate  to  meet  the  charges 
upon  it  while  another  had  a  large  balance.     An  act  of  1787 
introduced  a  new  and  better  plan.     Under  it,  all  revenues  from 
every  source  are  payable  into  a  single  Consolidated  Fund  at 
the  Banks  of  England  and  Ireland,  to  the  account  of  the  Ex- 
chequer ; '    and  all  disbursements  on  the  national   account   are 
made  out  of  this  fund.      Most  of  the  taxes  arc  imposed  by  "  per- 
manent "    statutes,    which    stand    unchanged    for    considerable 
periods  of  time;   but  some  are  laid  afresh  each  year,  or  at   all 
events  are  subject  to  an  annual  revision  of  rates.     Similarly, 
some  expenditures  are  regulated  by  standing  laws  and  others 
by    annual    appropriations.     Most    disbursements    fall    in    the 
latter  category;    only  those  which  it  is  particularly  desirable  to 
keep  out  of  politics,  i.e.,  the  Civil  List,  the  salaries  of  judges,  the 
interest  on   the  national   debt,   and   other  outlays  aggregating, 
before  the  Great  War,  something  less  than  one  fourth  of  the 
total    expenditure,    are    "Consolidated    Fund    charges."    paid 
directly  out  of  the  Fund  without  annual  authorization.     Ex- 
penditures which  are  voted  from  year  to  year  are  said  to  be  lor 
the   "  supply  services,"  because   the  appropriations  are  made 

1  Tn  Scotland  the  custodianship  is  passed  around  from  year  to  year  among  six 
banks.  For  certain  slight  modifications  of  the  plan,  introduced  in  recent  years, 
see  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  1,  1  [6. 


THE  MINlaiJDJxo  AND   ADMINISTRATIVE   SYSTEM     77 

by  the  House  of  Commons  in  Committee  of  Supply,  which  is  a 
form  of  committee  of  the  whole.  It  is  the  business  of  the  Comp- 
troller and  Auditor-General  to  see  that  all  expenditures  have 
been  authorized  by  Parliament.  On  receiving  an  order  duly 
approved  by  this  official,  the  Bank  of  England  or  Ireland  allows 
the  Treasury  to  draw  for  the  amount,  and  as  a  rule  the  money 
is  turned  over  to  a  minister  known  as  the  Paymaster- General 
for  distribution  to  the  proper  departments.  There  are,  of  course, 
arrangements  for  audits.1 

The  Fighting  Services.  —  A  second  ancient  office  which  sur- 
vives only  in  commission  is  that  of  Lord  High  Admiral.  The 
navy  is  the  oldest  of  the  present  fighting  forces  of  the  realm  of  a 
professional  character,  and  the  Lord  High  Admiral's  office 
originated  as  early  as  the  fourteenth  century.  By  the  seven- 
teenth century  the  holder  of  this  position  was  a  man  of  great 
power,  and  Charles  I  agreed  with  the  parliamentary  party  that 
it  was  expedient  to  put  the  office  in  commission.  The  arrange- 
ment was  regularized  in  1690,  and  it  has  been  in  effect  continu- 
ously since  1708.2  Since  1832  naval  administration,  formerly 
shared  by  many  boards  and  other  agencies,  has  been  wholly  in 
the  hands  of  the  "  Lords  Commissioners  for  executing  the  office 
of  Lord  High  Admiral,"  otherwise  known  as  the  Admiralty 
Board. 

The  Admiralty  Board  now  consists  of  a  First  Lord,  four  or 
more  Naval  Lords,  and  one  or  more  Civil  Lords;  besides  a 
parliamentary,  a  financial,  and  a  permanent  secretary.  The 
First  Lord,  the  Civil  Lord,  and  the  parliamentary  secretary 
are  invariably  members  of  Parliament ;  the  financial  secretary 
may  be  a  member ;  and  the  First  Lord  always  has  a  seat  in  the 
cabinet.  The  Naval  Lords  are  eligible  to  Parliament,  but  usu- 
ally are  not  members.  The  permanent  secretary  is  ineligible. 
Unlike  the  Treasury  Board,  which  never  meets,  the  Admiralty 
Board  holds  regular  and  frequent  sessions.     Legally,  all  members 

1  On  the  handling  of  finance  bills  in  Parliament  see  p.  189.  The  best  brief 
account  of  the  Treasury  is  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,  1 15-130.  See  also 
Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,!!,  Pt.  i,  173-190.  and  Dicey,  Law  of 
the  Constitution,  Chap.  x.  Financial  procedure  is  well  described  in  C.  Ilbert, 
Legislative  Methods  and  Forms  (Oxford,  1901),  284-299.  The  budget  svstemis 
described,  with  much  comparison,  in  R.  Stourm,  The  Budget,  trans,  by  I.  Plazm, 
ski  (New  York,  1917).  W.  F.  Willoughby,  W.  W.  Willoughby,  and  S.  M.  Lindsay- 
Financial  Administration  of  Great  Britain  (New  York,  I9i7),is  a  scholarly  treatise; 
and  the  subject  is  adequately  covered  in  H.  Higgs,  Financial  System  of  the  I  mted 
Kingdom  (London,  1914),  and'  E.  Young,  System  of  National  Finance  (London,  1915). 

2  Except  in  1827-28,  when  the  Duke  of  Clarence,  later  William  IV,  was  Lord 
High  Admiral. 


78  GOVERNMENTS  01    El  ROPE 

are  on  a  common  footing  and  the  First  Lord  is  only  a  chair- 
man. Actually,  the  First  Lord  has  enjoyed  a  substantial  pri- 
macy since  [832,  and  under  orders  in  council  of  i86g  and 
1872  he  bears  sole  responsibility  before  Parliament  for  all  busi- 
ness transacted.  This  being  the  case,  his  word  governs.  If  his 
colleagues  are  unwilling  to  accept  his  decisions,  they  have  the 
option  of  resigning;  or  the  First  Lord  may  himself  resign,  which 
automatically  dissolves  the  Board.  Practically,  therefore,  the 
First  Lord  has  become  a  minister  of  marine  assisted  by  an  ad- 
visory council.  The  Naval  Lords,  being  naval  officers,  usually 
of  high  rank,  give  most  of  their  time  to  the  administrative  ser- 
vices of  the  department,  and  certain  branches  are  assigned  also  to 
the  Civil  Lord  and  the  secretaries.1 

Six  of  the  great  departments  to-day  are  the  product  of  a  curious 
evolution  of  the  ancient  secretariat  of  state.  Originally  there 
was  but  a  single  official  who  bore  the  designation  of  secretary  of 
state.  In  the  earlier  eighteenth  century  a  second  official  was 
added,  although  no  new  office  was  created.  At  the  close  of  the 
century  a  third  was  added,  after  the  Crimean  War  a  fourth., 
after  the  Indian  mutiny  of  1857  a  fifth,  and  during  the  Great 
War  a  sixth.  There  are  now,  accordingly,  six  "  principal  secre- 
taries of  state,"  all  in  theory  occupying  the  same  office,  and 
each,  save  for  a  few  statutory  restrictions,  legally  competent  to 
exercise  the  functions  of  any  or  all  of  the  others.  In  practice 
each  of  the  six  holds  strictly  to  his  own  domain.  The  group 
comprises:  (1)  the  Secretary  of  State  for  the  Home  Depart- 
ment; (2)  the  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs;  (3)  the 
Secretary  of  State  for  the  Colonies ;  (4)  the  Secretary  of  State 
for  War;  (5)  the  Secretary  of  State  for  India;  and  (6)  the 
Secretary  of  State  for  Air.2 

The  organization  of  the  War  Office  has  never  been  as  satis- 
factory as  that  of  the  Admiralty,  and  in  the  half-century  prior 
to  the  Great  War  it  was  the  subject  of  numerous  inquiries, 
criticisms,  and  reports.  The  subject  is  too  extensive  and 
technical  to  be  entered  into  here,  but  a  few  salient  facts  may  be 
mentioned.3     In  the  first  place,  as  Lowell  has  aptly  observed, 

1  J.  R.Thursiicld,  "The  Board  of  Admiralty,"  in  Quar.Rev.,  Dec.,  1914,  and  Jan., 

2  To  these  may,  perhaps,  be  added  the  office  of  Secretary  fur  Scotland,  established 
in  1885  and  reconstructed  practically  on  the  basis  0    a    secretaryship  oi 
during  the  Great  W  ir.     For  an  1  ount  of  the  creation  of  the  Ministry  of 
Air  see  Report  of  the  War  Cabinet  for  r<  525,  1910),  Cha] 

3  Adequate  brief  discussions  are  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,  93-105,  and 
Jenks,  Government  of  the  British  Empire,  171-195.  Cf.  C.  K.  Callwell,  "The  War 
Office  in  War  Time,"  in  Blackwood's  Mag.,  Jan.,  1919. 


THE   MINISTERS  AND   ADMINISTRATIVE   SYSTEM     79 

like  other  countries  with  a  popular  form  of  government,  England 
has  found  it  hard  to  reconcile  military  command  and  civil  con- 
trol.   A  great  amount  of  English  political  history  centers  around 
the  efforts  of  Parliament,  from  the  fourteenth  century  onwards, 
to  hedge  about  with  effective,  yet  not  entirely  prohibitive,  re- 
strictions the  power  of  the  crown  to  raise,  pay,  and  use  armed 
forces.     This  end  was  partially  achieved  in  the  Bill  of  Rights, 
which  to  this  day  makes  it  unlawful  for  the  crown  to  raise  or 
keep  a  standing  army  within  the  kingdom,  in  time  of  peace, 
"  unless  it  be  with  the  consent  of  Parliament."     Operating  to 
the  same  effect  was  the  annual  Mutiny  Act,  which  from  1689 
suspended  for  one  year  various  provisions  of  the  Petition  of 
Right  and  the  Bill  of  Rights  that  stood  in  the  way  of  the  main- 
tenance of  an  army,  and  which  from  171 2  also  fixed  definitely 
the  number  of  soldiers  that  the  crown  might  lawfully  raise.1 
Full  parliamentary  supremacy  came  only,  however,  after  the 
Crimean  War,  when  the  War  and  Colonial  offices  were  sepa- 
rated and  the  Secretary  of  State  for  War  (dating  from  1793) 
was  vested  with  control  of  the  army  and  with  full  responsibility, 
as  a  cabinet   officer,   to   Parliament.     In   1904,   following  the 
unsatisfactory  experiences  of  the  South  African  War,  the  office 
of  commander-in-chief,   which  had  long  been  an  obstacle   to 
unified  control  by  the  Secretary  for  War,  was  abolished;    and 
while  the  administration  of  military  affairs  was  vested  in  a  new 
body,  the  Army  Council,  consisting  of  three  ministers  in  the 
War  Office  and  four  professional  officials  of  high  rank,  unity  of 
control  and  the  complete  supremacy  of  Parliament  were,   in 
effect,  maintained  by  provisions  making  the  Secretary  for  War 
president  of  the  Council  and  giving  the  latter  a  function  which, 
in  the  final  analysis,  is  only  advisory,  and  therefore  like  that  of 
the  First  Lord's  colleagues  in  the  Admiralty.     Under  the  supreme 
test  of  the  Great  War,  the  system  yielded  satisfactory  results. 

The  Foreign  and  Home  Offices.  —  The  management  of  rela- 
tions with  foreign  states  falls  to  the  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign 
Affairs,  aided  by  a  parliamentary  under-secretary,  a  permanent 
under-secretary,  several  assistant  under-secretaries,  and  a  con- 
siderable staff  of  clerks  and  other  subordinates.     The  operations 

1  In  1881  the  great  mass  of  military  law  representing  the  by-product  of  upwards 
of  two  hundred  Mutiny  Acts  was  consolidated  in  the  Army  Act;  and  it  is  this 
Army  Act  that  is  nowadays  reenacted  or  revived  every  year,  in  lieu  of  the  original 
Mutinv  Act  of  William  III.  The  measure  continues  to  be  commonly  referred  to, 
however,  as  the  Mutiny  Act.  Cf.  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  (Art.  I,  §  8)  which  forbids  Congress  to  appropriate  money  if  designed  for  the 
raising  and  supporting  of  armies,  "for  a  longer  term  than  two  years." 


So  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

of  the  departmenl  cover  practically  the  tut  ire  world,  and  are 
carried  on  partly  by  direct  correspondence,  but  mainly  through 
the  agenc)  of  ministers,  ambassadors,  and  other  diplomatic 
officers  and  of  consuls  and  consular  representatives  of  various 
grades.  There  is  comparatively  little  work  of  a  purely  adminis- 
trative nature.  The  protection  of  the  interests  of  British  sub- 
jects abroad  and  the  cultivation  of  British  commercial  su< 
beyond  seas  involve  a  certain  amount  of  routine.  But,  in 
the  main,  the  Foreign  Office  is  engaged  upon  tasks  corre- 
spondence with  foreign  governments,  preparation  of  instructions 
For  diplomats,  negotiation  of  treaties  —  which  are  difficult, 
delicate,  and  at  times  dangerous.  It  knows  many  things  and 
does  many  things  which  the  well-being  of  the  country  forbids 
to  be  made  public.  From  this  it  follows,  fust,  that  a  far  larger 
proportion  of  decisions  and  actions  emanate  from,  or  at  all 
events  are  specifically  approved  by,  the  chief  official  of  the 
department  than  in  departments  whose  work  is  more  largely 
administrative,  and,  second,  that  the  department  is  more  de- 
tached, and  even  more  immune,  from  parliamentary  control, 
than  any  of  the  others.  All  of  the  threads  are  gathered  tightly 
in  the  Foreign  Secretary's  hands.  Parliament  can  promote  or 
thwart  foreign  policies  by  granting  or  withholding  funds;  a 
foreign  minister  whose  acts  or  policies  are  disliked  can  be  got  rid 
of  by  an  adverse  vote  in  the  House  of  Commons  on  a  party 
measure ;  and  the  ministers  are  expected  to  keep  the  houses 
informed  on  foreign  affairs.  Furthermore,  while  in  times  past 
it  has  not  been  considered  that  treaties  must  be  ratified  by  the 
houses  in  order  to  be  binding,  a  rule  to  the  opposite  effect  seems 
clearly  to  have  established  itself.  Normally,  however,  the 
Foreign  Office  functions  without  much  interrelation  with  Parlia- 
ment.1 On  the  other  hand,  every  successful  foreign  minister 
keeps  his  chief,  the  premier,  fully  informed,  and  important  ques- 
tions that  arise  within  his  domain  are  certain  to  be  made  the 
subject  of  cabinet   discussion.2    The  sovereign,   too,   is   freely 

1  See  p.  70.  The  subject  is  dealt  with  on  comparative  lines  in  "Treatment  of 
International  Questions  by  Parliaments  in  European  Countries,  the  United  States, 
and  Japan,"  Brit.  Purl.  Papers,  Misc.,  No.  5  (1912),  and  in  I).  P.  Myers,  "Legisla- 
tures and  Foreign  Relations,"  in  Amer.  Polit.  Sci.  Rev.,  Nov.,  1017-     A  standing 

House  of  Common     mittee  on   foreign  relations  is  advocated  in  T.  Barclay, 

Collapse  and  Reconstruction  (Boston,  1919),  52-53. 

2  "A  considerable  amount  of  fault  lias  been  found  with  what  some  people  think 
is  and  what  they  call  my  foreign  pi  >h\  j  .  but  which,  of  course,  ought  not  to  be  called 
my  foreign  policy,  because  it  is  quite  impossible  for  any  individual  foreign  minister 
to  carry  out  a  policy  which  .  in  its  main  lines,  the  policy  of  the  cabinet 

of  which  he  is  a  member."     Sir  Edward  Grey,  emoted  in  London  Times  (Weekly 
ed.),  Jan.  26,  191 2,  p.  71. 


THE   Mimbii^Kb   AND  ADMINISTRATIVE  SYSTEM     81 

consulted,  and  more  frequently  wields  influence  here  than  in 
any  other  part  of  the  governmental  system. 

The  Home  Office  is,  in  the  expressive  words  of  Lowell,  a  "  re- 
siduary legatee  "  ;  that  is  to  say,  it  has  such  of  the  functions  of 
the  ancient  secretariat  (with  some  newer  ones)  as  remain  after 
the  specific  assignments  made  to  the  other  secretaries  and  to 
miscellaneous  departments.  It  has  to  do  exclusively  with 
domestic  affairs.  Yet  it  is  not  like  a  continental  ministry  of 
the  interior,  whose  principal  function  is  the  supervision  of  local 
government.  Nor  has  it  much  in  common  with  the  federal 
Department  of  the  Interior  in  the  United  States.  .  Ignoring  many 
minor  activities,  the  work  of  the  Home  Secretary  and  his  assist- 
ants consists  in  (i)  receiving  and  transmitting  petitions  to  the 
crown;  (2)  preparing  and  countersigning  the  warrants,  or 
orders,  to  which  the  sovereign  affixes  his  "  sign-manual,"  or 
personal  signature ;  (3)  administering  the  naturalization  laws ; 
(4)  governing  the  Channel  Islands  and  the  Isle  of  Man ;  (5)  con- 
trolling the  police  establishment  of  metropolitan  London ; 
(6)  inspecting  the  police  elsewhere  throughout  the  United 
Kingdom  and  issuing  certificates  which  alone  entitle  the  county 
and  borough  authorities  to  national  aid  in  the  maintenance  of 
their  several  police  systems ; x  (7)  approving  the  arrangements 
for  the  "assizes,"  or  circuits,  of  the  judges;  (8)  advising  the 
sovereign  upon  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  pardon ;  (9)  manag- 
ing the  national  and  local  prisons;  (10)  appointing  the  Director 
of  Public  Prosecutions; 2  and  (n)  by  virtue  of  special  statutes, 
seeing  to  the  enforcement  of  miscellaneous  welfare  and  remedial 
legislation. 

The  Lord  High  Chancellor  and  the  Law  Officers  of  the  Crown. 
—  There  is  in  England  no  department  of  justice,  and  no  single 
officer  performs  the  duties  of  a  continental  minister  of  justice 
or  of  an  American  attorney-general.  The  work  is  done,  but  it 
is  divided  among  several  officials,  who  have  but  little  contact 
one  with  another.  Most  prominent  and  important  among  these 
officials  is  the  Lord  High  Chancellor.  "  The  greatest  dignitary," 
says  Lowell,  "  in  the  British  government,  the  one  endowed  by 
law  with  the  most  exalted  and  most  diverse  functions,  the  only 
great  officer  of  state  who  has  retained  his  ancient  rights,  the 

1  The  subvention  allowed  by  the  national  government  amounts  to  one  half  of 
the  total  outlay  on  the  police  establishment  in  all  areas  where  the  Home  Secretary 
is  willing  to  certify  that  the  establishment  is  in  a  satisfactory  condition.  On  the 
police  establishment  see  Report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Police  Service  of  England, 
Wales,  and  Scotland.     Cd.  253,  1919. 

2  See  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,  134-135. 

G 


82  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

man  who  defies  the  doctrine  of  the  separation  of  powers  more 
than  any  other  personage  on  earth,  is  th<  Lord  Chancellor."1 
Here  again  we  come  upon  an  office  of  great  antiquity.  I 
nally  as  far  back  as  the  eleventh  century  -the  Lord  High 
Chancellor  was  merely  the  king's  chief  scribe;  the  name  is  said 
to  be  derived  from  the  cancel  reen,  in  the  king's  chapel 

behind  which  the  scribes  carried  on  their  work.  In  time,  how- 
ever, he  became  a  trusted  adviser,  especially  in  matters  touch- 
ing the  exercise  of  the  royal  ''grace,"  i.e.,  the  redress  of  griev- 
3  for  which  the  common  law  made  no  provision;2  and  by 
the  sixteenth  century,  when  Sir  'Thomas  More  appears  as  the 
first  lay  holder  of  the  office,  he  was  an  imposing  figure  as  the 
dispenser  of  "  equity  "  in  the  Court  of  Chancery.  From  the 
first  he  was  the  custodian  of  the  royal  seal,  and  every  writ  or 
proclamation  of  the  king  had  to  pass  through  his  hands.  Further- 
more, his  primacy  in  the  Court  of  Chancery  brought  him  large 
judicial  patronage;  and  when  the  judicial  reforms  of  1873-76 
fused  the  organization  of  the  common  law  and  equity  courts,3 
control  over  appointments  to  practically  all  important  judicial 
positions  passed  into  his  hands.  Meanwhile  he  gatlu  red  still 
other  important  functions  and  became  a  leading  member  of 
the  cabinet.  So  that,  nowadays,  the  work  of  this  remarkable 
dignitary  runs  somewhat  as  follows :  he  is  the  chief  judge  in  the 
High  Court  of  Justice  and  in  the  Court  of  Appeals;  he  is  the 
legal  member  of  the  cabinet  and  he  gives  his  colleagues  expert 
advice,  although  he  is  not  officially  the  ministers'  legal  adviser; 
he  recommends  for  appointment  to  higher  judicial  positions,  and 
in  fact,  though  not  in  form,  appoints  and  removes  the  county 
court  judges  and  most  of  the  justices  of  the  peace ;  he  presides 
in  the  House  of  Lords ;  he  affixes  the  Great  Seal  to  documents 
that  require  it;  he  approves  the  regulations  relating  to  public 
prosecutions;  and  he,  of  course,  sits  as  a  member  of  the  cabinet 
and  participates  in  the  deliberative  and  advisory  work  of  that 
body.  He  does  not,  properly,  administer  a  department.  But 
his  activity  and  influence  continually  touch  every  branch  of 
government  at  some  vital  point.4 

1  Government  of  England,  I,  131. 

2  Jenks,  Government  of  tin   British  Empire,  220.     See  Maitland  and  Montague, 
Sketch  of  English  Legal  History,  120-128. 

3  See  p.  210. 

1 1t  i  bserved  that  he  is  Lord  High  Chancellor  not  only  of  England  but 

of  Grf.il  Britain.  There  is  a  separate  Lord  High  Chancellor  for  Ireland.  On  the 
Lord  High  (  li.incellor's  office  see  H.  Graham,  Mother  of  Parliaments  (London, 
19 10),  Chap.  vi. 


THE   MINISTERS  AND   ADMINISTRATIVE   SYSTEM     83 

To  a  considerable  extent,  the  functions  of  the  American 
Attorney- General  are  performed  in  England  by  an  officer  of 
the  same  title,  and  by  his  colleague  and  substitute,  the  Solicitor- 
General.  The  Attorney- General  and  the  Solicitor- General  are 
known  as  the  "  law  officers  of  the  crown."  They  are  members 
of  the  ministry  (though  rarely  of  the  cabinet),  and  are  selected 
from  among  the  most  eminent  barristers  belonging  to  the  party 
in  power.  One  of  their  two  principal  duties  is  to  give  legal 
advice  to  the  cabinet,  and  to  the  several  departments ;  although, 
as  in  the  United  States,  most  of  the  departments  have  legal 
advisers  on  their  own  staff  whose  opinions  suffice  upon  all  save 
the  largest  matters.  Their  other,  and  perhaps  primary,  duty  is 
to  represent  the  crown  in  legal  proceedings,  especially  in  im- 
portant criminal  and  political  trials.1 

The  Regulative  Boards.  —  Another  interesting  group  of  de- 
partments is  made  up  of  certain  regulative  boards  and  com- 
missions, most  of  them  of  comparatively  recent  origin.  They 
are  frequently  referred  to  as  administrative  boards.  This, 
however,  is  somewhat  misleading,  because,  in  the  main,  their 
work  consists,  not  of  direct  administration,  but  of  supervision 
and  regulation  of  private  organizations  and  of  local  authorities. 
At  the  head  of  each  board  is  a  president  (save  that  the  chief  of 
the  Board  of  Works  is  known  as  First  Commissioner),  and  in 
each  instance  the  members  include  the  secretaries  of  state  and 
certain  other  important  persons.  This  membership,  however, 
is  only  nominal.  No  one  of  the  Boards  actually  meets,  and  the 
work  is  performed  entirely  by  the  president  and  his  staff,  with, 
in  most  instances,  the  assistance  of  a  parliamentary  under- 
secretary. "  In  practice,  therefore,  these  boards  are  legal 
phantoms  that  provide  imaginary  colleagues  for  a  single  respon- 
sible minister."  As  a  rule,  the  presidents  are  admitted  to  the 
cabinet  circle. 

The  oldest  is  the  Board  of  Trade,  traceable  to  the  times  of 
Cromwell,  constituted  a  committee  of  the  Privy  Council  in  1782, 
and  put  on  a  statutory  basis  in  1862.  Until  three  quarters  of  a 
century  ago,  the  work  of  this  Board  consisted  mainly  in  gather- 
ing commercial  statistics  and  advising  other  departments  on 
commercial  matters.  The  enormous  expansion  of  government 
regulation  of  industry  in  later  decades  has,  however,  brought 
many  new  and  important  functions.     The  Board  still  collects 

1  See  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,  134-135,  for  an  explanation  of  the 
methods  of  prosecution  in  England,  and  for  an  account  of  the  work  of  the  Director 
of  Public  Prosecutions. 


84  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

and  pub!  tatistics  and  other  information  on   foreign  and 

domestic  hade  and  likewise  on  labor,  wages,  and  other  indie 
trial  subjects.  Bui  it  also  maintains  a  register  of  all  British 
ships,  makes  and  executes  regulations  for  the    afety  of  men  haul 

Is,   provides  and   maintains  lighthouses,  controls  hai 
supervises  the   Patent   Office,   maintains  standards  of  weights 
and  n  .  acts  as  an  agency  of  com  illation  in  labor  disputes 

and  appoints  arbitrators  and  conciliators,  administers  the  law 
of  bankruptcy,  and  grants  provisional  orders  empowering  borough 
councils  to  undertake  the  ownership  or  operation  of  tramways, 
gas  plants,  waterworks,  and  other  public  utilities.1  As  this 
lengthy  and  by  no  means  exhaustive  lisl  suggests,  the  Hoard's 
functions  are  very  numerous  and  its  importance  is  steadily  in- 
creasing; although  most  of  its  former  duties  pertaining  to  rail- 
road- and  highways  have  been  transferred  to  the  Ministry  of 
Transport  established  in  1919.2 

A  second  great  regulative  commission  is  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion. Prior  to  the  nineteenth  century,  facilities  of  elementary 
instruction  were  left  to  be  provided,  in  England  as  elsewhere, 
by  the  church  and  by  private  philanthropy;  not  until  1833  did 
Parliament  begin  to  appropriate  money  for  the  aid  of  local 
authorities  in  the  maintenance  of  schools.  In  1839  the  amount 
of  the  annual  grant  was  increased,  and  an  order  in  council  created 
a  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council  on  Education,  whose  vice- 
president  became,  in  1856,  a  member  of  the  ministry.  The 
Forster  Education  Act  of  1870  made  no  attempt  to  set  up  a 
nation-wide  system  of  publicly  supported  schools.  But  it 
required  all  communities  that  were  not  adequately  served  by 
either  denominational  or  public  schools  to  see  that  the  deficiencies 
were  supplied,  and  it  authorized  the  election  of  local  school 
boards  to  undertake  the  work  of  educational  administration. 
During  the  next  three  decades  the  number  of  public  schools 
steadily  increased,  and  in  1899  the  central  Committee  on  Educa- 
tion was  converted  into  the  present  Board  of  Education,  whose 
jurisdiction  is  coextensive  with  the  broad  fields  of  elementary 
and  secondary  instruction.  This  Board,  indeed,  prescribes  the 
nature  and  amount  of  the  instruction  to  be  given  in  all  schools 
aided  by  public  money;  it  inspects  all  such  schools,  together 
with  private  or  endowed  secondary  schools  at  their  request; 
and  it  carries  on  educational  investigations  and  publishes  bulle- 

1  W.  B.  Minn",  Government  of  European  Cities  (New  York,  1009),  330-332. 

2  Report  of  Ike  Cumin  ilia-  to  Examine  the  Question  of  Government  Machinery  fo> 
Dealing  with  Trade  and  Commerce.     Cd.  319,  1919. 


THE   MINISTERS  AND  ADMINISTRATIVE   SYSTEM     85 

tins  and  reports.  An  Education  Act  of  1902  abolished  the  school 
boards  and  transferred  the  work  of  local  administration  to  the 
county  and  borough  councils,  each  of  which  is  required  to  main- 
tain a  special  committee  on  the  subject;  so  that  nowadays  the 
supervisory  contact  of  the  central  Board  is  principally  with 
these  committees.1 

Other  regulative  boards  of  which  less  need  be  said  are :  (1)  the 
Board  of  Works,  which  since  its  separation  in  1852  from  the 
Commissioners  of  Woods  and  Forests,  has  had  charge  of  the 
construction  and  upkeep  of  national  parks,  palaces,  and  public 
buildings ;  (2)  the  Board  of  Agriculture,  created  in  1889,  and 
endowed  with  limited  powers  for  the  promotion  of  agriculture, 
the  prevention  of  diseases  among  animals,  and  the  control  of 
fisheries ;  and  (3)  the  Local  Government  Board.  The  first  two 
of  these  agencies  are  relatively  unimportant;  the  third  has 
ceased  altogether  to  exist. 

Although  now  extinct,  the  Local  Government  Board  had,  for 
upwards  of  fifty  years,  a  role  of  such  importance  in  the  govern- 
mental system  that  it  merits  a  word  of  comment.2  Legally, 
the  Board  dated  from  1871.  But  its  history  really  goes  back  to 
1834,  when  the  Poor  Law  Amendment  Act  set  up  a  Poor  Law 
Commission  charged  with  the  supervision  of  the  administration 
of  public  charity  by  the  local  authorities.  In  1847  this  body 
was  converted  into  a  Poor  Law  Board,  with  representation  in 
the  ministry,  and  in  1871  the  functions  of  an  earlier  Board  of 
Public  Health  and  of  the  local  government  subdepartment  of 
the  Home  Office  were  added  and  the  name  was  broadened  to 
Local  Government  Board.  As  will  be  pointed  out  in  another 
place,  centralizing  legislation  of  the  past  hundred  years  has 
wrought  a  remarkable  transformation  in  the  English  system  of 
local  government,3  and  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  Local 
Government  Board  has  been  the  principal  means  or  medium 
employed  in  this  readjustment;  save  in  relation  to  police, 
education,  and  the  regulation  of  public  utilities,  substantially 
all  administrative  and  supervisory  control  wielded  from  London 
over  the  authorities  of  county,  borough,  urban  and  rural  district, 
and  parish  was  gathered,  until  1919,  in  its  hands.  It  had  few 
powers  of  dirqct  administration  ;  but  it  exercised  strong  regulative 
influence  in  relation  to  poor  relief,  public  health,  sanitation,  local 

1  Jenks,  Government  of  the  British  Empire,  235-244 ;  Lowell,  Government  of  Eng- 
land, I,  295-342. 

2  The  circumstances  under  which  it  was  merged,  in  iqiq,  into  the  new  Ministry 
of  Health  are  described  below.     See  p.  86. 

3  See  p.  227. 


86  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

borrowing  and  expenditure,  old  age  pension  administration,  and 
half  a  score  of  other  matters.  It  Inspected,  criticized,  and 
advised;    within  the  limits  of  powers  conferred  by  Parliament, 

it  made  and  executed  regulations  with  the  lone  of  law;  it 
approved,  amended,  and  vetoed  local  legislation  ;  it  audited  local 
accounts;  in  a  few  cases  it  appointed  and  removed  officials. 
The  president  of  the  Board  was  not  only  a  responsible  minister 
but  usually  an  influential  member  of  the  cabinet.1 

Administrative  Reorganization  after  1914.  The  war  sub- 
jected the  administrative  system  to  a  severe  strain  and  wrought 
great,  and  more  or  less  lasting,  changes  in  it.  Readjustments 
were  of  three  main  kinds,  according  as  they  affected  the  ministry 
in  (1)  its  size,  (2)  its  party  character,  and  (3)  its  relation  to  the 
cabinet  and  to  Parliament.  Compared  with  continental  minis- 
tries, the  British  ministry  was  already  very  large  when  the  war 
began.  It  numbered  from  fifty  to  sixty  persons,  whereas  the 
French  ministry  numbered  but  twelve,  the  Italian  twelve,  and 
the  German  eight.  From  the  time  when  the  cabinet  was  orig- 
inally set  off  from  the  ministry  and  the  ministry  as  such  ceased 
to  be  a  policy-determining  body,  and  even  to  hold  meetings, 
there  was  no  very  determined  effort  to  keep  down  the  numbers ; 
and  during  the  war  period  new  ministries  were  created,  depart- 
ments were  divided  and  otherwise  reconstructed,  and  the  num- 
ber of  officials  of  ministerial  rank  (especially  parliamentary 
under-secretaries)  was  increased,  with  such  freedom  that  the 
membership  of  the  ministry  was  brought  up,  by  June,  1918,  to 
ninety-three.  The  principal  ministries  thus  established  after 
1914  were:  munitions  in  1915;  blockade,  labor,  pensions,  food 
control,  shipping  control,  and  air  service  in  1916  ;  national  service 
and  reconstruction  in  191 7;  and  transport  and  public  health  in 
1919.2  Most  of  these  were  created  for  war  purposes  only,  and 
will  not  be  kept  up,  at  all  events  as  separate  departments.  On 
the  other  hand,  they  have  involved  a  considerable  amount  of 
administrative  reconstruction  which  is  intended  to  be  permanent. 

A  good  illustration  of  the  kind  of  reorganization  that  has  been 
in  progress  since  the  armistice  is  afforded  by  the  new  Ministry 
of  Public  Health.  Medical  examinations  in  connection  with 
recruiting  brought  to  light  grave  facts  concerning  the  physical 

'Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,  284-294;  Alunro,  Government  of  European 
Cities,  315-330;  Ashley,  Local  mid  Central  Government,  Chap,  i ;  M.  R.  Maltbie, 
"The  Local  Ciovernment  Board,"  in  Polit.  Set.  Quar.,  June.  1898. 

8  For  a  full  account  of  the  evolution  and  functions  of  these  new  ministries  see 
Fairlie,  British  War  Administration,  Chaps,  iv-xii. 


THE   MINISTERS   AND   ADMINISTRATIVE   SYSTEM     87 

fitness  of  the  people,  especially  the  industrial  classes,  and  forced 
the  conclusion  that  the  state  must  in  future  concern  itself  far 
more  with  matters  of  public  health  than  in  times  past.  Before 
and  during  the  war,  public  health  functions  were  loosely  dis- 
tributed among  a  number  of  distinct  branches  of  the  govern- 
ment, with  much  resulting  friction,  confusion,  and  inefficiency, 
and  it  became  very  clear  that  if  the  work  of  the  government  was 
to  be  properly  performed  in  this  field,  control  must  be  gathered 
in  a  single  department  clothed  with  adequate  powers.  Such 
a  department  was  authorized  by  act  of  Parliament  approved 
June  3,  19 1 9.  To  the  new  health  ministry  were  transferred  the 
inspection  of  factories  and  workshops,  hitherto  carried  on  by 
the  Home  Office ;  the  medical  inspection  of  school  children, 
taken  over  from  the  department  of  education ;  and  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  National  Insurance  Act  of  191 1,  formerly 
in  the  hands  of  a  board  of  insurance  commissioners.1  Certain 
new  functions  were  also  assigned,  especially  the  promotion  of 
sanitary  housing  and  sundry  activities  directed  to  the  prevention 
of  disease.  Finally,  the  Local  Government  Board  —  which,  it 
will  be  recalled,  had  absorbed  a  national  Board  of  Health  in 
1871  — was  abolished  as  such  and  its  extensive  functions  were 
transferred  to  the  new  ministry,  although  the  act  provided  that 
any  of  the  powers  thus  acquired  which  did  not  relate  to  public 
health  might  be  transferred  elsewhere  at  any  time  by  order  in 
council.2 

Even  more  important,  temporarily  at  all  events,  than  the 
increase  in  size  were  the  changes  which  the  war  produced  in  the 
ministry's  party  character  and  in  its  relation  to  the  cabinet  and 
to  Parliament.  In  France,  where  all  ministries  are  to  some  ex- 
tent coalitions,  the  Viviani  ministry  of  1914  was  reconstructed 
within  a  few  weeks  after  the  outbreak  of  hostilities,  with  a  view 
to  including  representatives  of  all  important  political  groups. 
In  Great  Britain,  where  the  party  unity  of  the  ministry  had  so 
long  been  an  inflexible  rule,  the  effort  was  made  to  keep  up  the 
old  system,  notwithstanding  immediate  agreement  upon  a 
general  party  truce ;  and  the  Liberal  ministry  presided  over  by 
Asquith  held  on  for  upwards  of  a  year.  Public  discontent  and 
parliamentary  opposition  finally  forced  a  change,  however;  and 
in  May,  1915,  both  the  cabinet  and  the  ministry  as  a  whole  were 

1  In  Ireland,  however,  the  commissioners  were  left  in  control. 

2  The  development  of  public  health  administration  to  1914  is  best  described  in 
B.  G.  Bannington,  English  Public  Health  Administration  (London,  1915).  On  the 
new  ministry  see  P.  Alden,  "A  Ministry  of  Health,"  in  Contemp.  Rev.,  Apr.,  1918. 


S8  G0\  ERNMEN  PS  0*    El  ROPE 

reconstructed  on  a  coalition  basis.    Thenceforth  the  coalition 
principle  was   steadily  adhered  to;    and  at  the  date  of  writing 

(July.  k)2o)  a  coalition  ministry  presided  over  by  Lloyd   (, 
is  still  in  office,  although  signs  multiply  that  the  principle  of 
party  solidarity  will  presently  be  revived.1 
Other  changes  deeply  affected   the  relation  of  the  ministry 

to  the  cabinet  and  to  Parliament,  the  most  important  being 
the  creation  of  the  "  war  cabinet  "  in  December,  1916.  The 
war  cabinet  and  its  workings  will  be  described  in  the  succeeding 
chapter.2  Hence  it  will  suffice  to  say  here  that  when  this  small 
body  of  men  was  set  off  and  endowed  (by  common  consent  rather 
than  by  any  formal  act)  with  almost  unlimited  powers,  the 
cabinet  of  the  usual  sort  totally  disappeared,  most  ministers 
who  had  had  cabinet  seats  lost  them,  and,  notwithstanding 
occasional  opportunity  to  meet  with  and  advise  the  members 
of  the  war  cabinet,  the  ministry  as  a  whole  became  more  purely 
administrative  than  before.  Furthermore,  the  relation  with 
Parliament  was  altered.  In  the  first  place,  several  mini 
were  appointed  who  were  not  members  of  Parliament  at  all.8 
In  addition,  the  ministers  as  a  group  fell  into  the  habit  of  occupy- 
ing themselves  almost  exclusively  with  their  administrative 
duties  and  as  a  rule  took  little  part  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
two  houses.  This  was  partly  because  of  the  extraordinary 
pressure  of  administrative  tasks,  but  perhaps  mainly  because  of 
the  perfunctory  nature  of  parliamentary  debates  in  a  perio  I 
when  practically  every  request  of  the  government  was  certain 
to  be  complied  with  as  a  matter  of  course. 

It  is  pointed  out  in  the  succeeding  chapter  that  the  extraor- 
dinary form  of  organization  which  the  war  cabinet  involved  was 
abandoned  late  in  1919,  and  that  the  cabinet  has  resumed  its 
earlier  appearance,  save  only  that  the  coalition  ba>i>  has  been 
preserved.  This  means  that  the  old  relation  between  the 
ministry  and  the  cabinet  on  the  one  hand  and  the  ministry  and 
Parliament  on  the  other  has  been  largely  revived,  excepting  only 
those  aspects  that  hinge  upon  considerations  of  party;  and  even 
the  traditional  party  element  is  likely  to  reappear,  although 
party  lines  can  be  depended  upon  to  be  somewhat  differently 
drawn.  So  far  as  the  ministry,  as  distinguished  from  the  cabinet, 
is  concerned,  the  permanent  effeel  of  the  experiences  of  the  war 

1  See  pp.  330-335- 

-  See  p.  106. 

3  As  reconstructed  in  December,  1916,  the  ministry  contained  sixty  members 
of  the  House  of  Commons,  twenty-three  members  of  the  House  of  Lords,  and  five 
persons  who  were  not  members  of  either  house. 


THE   MINISTERS   AND   ADMINISTRATIVE   SYSTEM     89 

period  is  likely  to  be  the  expansion  of  administrative  work  in 
new  directions  and  the  better  correlation  of  it  under  unified 
agencies  of  control,  rather  than  any  marked  alteration  of  legal 
status  or  function.1 

The  Permanent  Civil  Service.  —  A  noteworthy  feature  of  the 
English  government  is  the  combination  of  amateur  and  expert 
in  executive  and  administrative  work.  The  ministers  are,  in 
general,  amateurs.  They  are  drawn  from  widely  differing 
walks  of  life ;  they  usually  bring  to  their  posts  little  experience 
in  administration ;  the  more  important  ones  must  give  a  large 
part  of  their  time  to  cabinet,  party,  and  other  activities  outside 
their  departments  \  they  are  frequently  shifted  from  one  posi- 
tion to  another.  All  this  would  mean  inefficiency  and  waste 
save  for  the  fact  that  the  departments  and  boards  are  manned 
with  permanent,  non-political  officials,  who,  carefully  selected 
in  the  first  place,  have,  through  long  service  and  close  applica- 
tion to  duty,  become  expert  in  the  business  which  the  depart- 
ment or  office  is  expected  to  carry  on.  Furthermore,  the  great 
administrative  services  —  the  post-office,  the  customs,  the  in- 
land revenue,  etc.  —  are  organized  in  strict  accordance  with 
what  we  should  call  in  the  United  States  the  "  merit  system." 

It  is  only  within  the  past  hundred  years  that  this  fortunate 
position  has  been  reached  ;  indeed,  until  less  than  two  generations 
ago  England,  like  the  United  States,  had  a  civil  service  problem 
of  the  first  magnitude.  The  principle  was  early  and  easily 
established  that  there  should  be,  among  the  higher  officers  — 
although  not  the  highest  —  of  every  department  a  reasonable 
fixity  of  tenure ;    experience  showed  this  to  be  a  plain  necessity. 

xThe  importance  of  administrative  efficiency  was  freshly  emphasized  by  the 
war,  and  in  July,  191 7,  a  subcommittee  of  the  Reconstruction  Committee  (later, 
the  Ministry  of  Reconstruction),  with  Lord  Haldane  as  its  chairman,  was  appointed 
to  investigate  the  organization  and  work  of  the  administrative  departments  and  to 
"advise  in  what  manner  the  exercise  and  distribution  by  the  Government  of  its 
functions  should  be  improved."  Renamed  the  Machinery  of  Government  Commit- 
tee, this  body  carried  out  its  task  conscientiously,  and  in  December,  1918,  it  sub- 
mitted an  extensive  and  highly  interesting  report  (Cd.  9230).  Doubtless  in- 
fluenced by  the  operation  of  the  war  cabinet,  the  committee  urged  both  a  small 
cabinet  (preferably  ten  members)  and  a  businesslike  mode  of  procedure,  coupled 
with  liberal  publicity,  such  as  the  war  cabinet  maintained.  It  stressed  the  necessity 
of  keeping  the  ministers,  especially  the  cabinet  members,  in  possession  of  the  data 
requisite  for  expeditious  actions,  and  hence  advocated  the  establishment  of  a 
separate  department  of  research  and  inquiry.  It  outlined  a  scheme  of  reorganiza- 
tion which  would  entail  a  sharp  reduction  of  the  number  of  ministries,  while  those 
that  remained  would  become  substantially  coordinate  on  the  plan  of  the  ten  federal 
executive  departments  in  the  United  States.  For  a  fuller  account  of  the  report  see 
F.  A.  Ogg,  "Proposed  Administrative  Reorganization  in  Great  Britain,"  in  Amer. 
Polit.  Sci.  Rev.,  May,  1919,  pp.  297-301. 


go  GOVERNMEN  rS  01     El  ROPE 

Hut  the  greal  mass  of  subordinate  officials  and  employees  not 
only  were  appointed  tor  no  definite  period,  but  were  subject  to 
removal  by  arbitrary  process  and  lor  any  reasons,  real  or  alleged. 
Removals  dictated  by  partisan  motives  never  became  as  common 
as  in  the  United  States,  mainly  on  account  of  the  prevalent  con- 
ception of  an  office-holder  as  having  a  vested  interest  in  the 
position  that  he  holds.  But  when  vacancies  occurred,  appoint- 
ments were  usually  made  on  a  partisan  or  personal  basis;  and 
the  patronage  became  a  powerful  instrumentality  in  politics. 

After  the  Reform  Act  of  18^2,  there  were  evidences  of  a  public 
awakening  on  the  subject  ;  and  curiously  enough,  about  the 
time  when  the  United  States,  under  Andrew  Jackson's  leader- 
ship, was  fast  surrendering  to  the  spoils  conception  of  public 
office  —  changes  for  the  better  began  to  be  made.  Pass  ex- 
aminations designed  to  exclude  the  least  lit  candidates  were 
introduced  in  some  departments ;  later,  competitive  tests  were 
started.  In  1853  a  government  commission  reported  in  favor 
of  a  general  system  of  appointment  by  open  competitive  ex- 
amination, and  two  years  later  an  order  in  council  created  a 
civil  service  commission  of  three  members  to  examine  candidates 
for  junior  positions.1  Thenceforth  the  system  made  gradual 
headway.  Pass  examinations,  however,  continued  to  be  gen- 
erally employed,  and  it  was  only  in  1870  that  the  open  competitive 
examination  was  widely  introduced.  An  order  in  council  of 
that  year,  which  is  still  the  basis  of  the  examination  system, 
provides  that  —  save  for  offices  filled  by  direct  appointment  of 
the  crown,  positions  rilled  by  promotion,  and  positions  requir- 
ing professional  or  other  peculiar  qualifications  —  no  person 
shall  be  employed  in  any  branch  of  the  civil  service  until  he  has 
been  examined  by  the  Civil  Service  Commission  and  reported 
qualified  to  be  admitted  on  probation.  The  order  listed  many 
classes  of  offices  for  which  the  examinations  must  be  competitive, 
and  the  number  has  since  been  extended  until  it  covers  almost 
all  positions  not  of  a  professional  or  confidential  nature,  and  at 
the  same  time  not  involving  mere  manual  labor  or  other  menial 
services.  In  addition  to  the  ministers,  the  permanent  under- 
secretaries and  assistant  under-secret aries  and  the  chiefs  of 
bureaus  in  the  departments  still  stand  outside  the  protected 
service.     The   chief   clerks   in    the    departments   are   recruited 

1  The  reform  in  England  was  aided  by  the  derision  of  Parliament  in  1853  to 
withdr;  -1  India  Company  the  privilege  of  appointing  persons  to  be 

trained  for  the  India  service;  this  beinj,r  followed  by  the  establishment,  in  1855, 
in  pursuance  of  a  report  by  a  commission  presided  over  by  the  historian  Macaulay, 
of  a  system  of  open  competitive  examinations  in  the  India  service. 


THE   MINISTERS  AND   ADMINISTRATIVE   SYSTEM     91 

mainly  by  promotion.  But  practically  all  officials  and  em- 
ployees below  these  are  selected  on  the  basis  of  competitive 
examinations,  which  are  thrown  open  to  aspirants  almost  as 
generously  as  are  similar  tests  in  the  United  States. 

The  English  system  offers  even  greater  security  of  tenure  for 
appointees  than  does  our  American  classified  service,  and  it  is 
applied  to  positions  considerably  higher  up  the  scale  than  is  the 
competitive  system  in  this  country ;  although  it  should  be 
added  that  there  is  a  distinct  tendency  among  us  to  carry  the 
system  farther  toward  the  top.1  Because  of  the  greater  per- 
manence of  tenure,  the  inclusion  of  positions  of  large  discretion 
and  influence,  and  the  desire  to  recruit  the  service  from  young 
men  who  will  prove  deserving  of  successive  promotions,  the 
English  examinations  are  framed  mainly  with  a  view  to  deter- 
mining the  candidate's  general  attainments,  and  especially  his 
intellectual  capacity.  Mathematics,  the  classics,  history,  science 
—  these  and  other  branches  of  higher  learning  enter  promi- 
nently ;  even  the  examinations  for  positions  of  a  purely  clerical 
character  are  conducted  on  this  principle,  although  they,  natu- 
rally, are  based  upon  more  elementary  subjects.  Under  the 
system  operating  in  the  United  States  the  object  of  the  ex- 
aminations is  not,  save  incidentally,  to  test  general  attainments 
and  capacity ;  it  is,  rather,  to  ascertain  the  applicant's  technical 
proficiency  and  present  fitness  for  the  kind  of  work  that  he 
seeks.  Each  system  has  certain  obvious  advantages;  but  the 
two  are  as  unlike  as  they  can  well  be. 

In  England,  as  in  the  United  States,  security  of  tenure  during 
good  behavior  and  opportunity  for  promotion  are  conditioned 
upon  abstention  from  political  activities.  The  permanent  em- 
ployees belong  to  the  "  non-political  "  part  of  the  government, 
in  contrast  with  the  ministers,  who  are  "  political  "  officers. 
They  are  not  disfranchised;  although  from  1782  to  1868  postal 
employees  and  revenue  collectors  were,  at  their  own  request, 
barred  from  voting.2  But  they  may  not  make  political  speeches, 
write  partisan  tracts,  edit  or  publish  party  newspapers,  canvass 
for  a  parliamentary  candidate,  or  serve  on  a  party  committee ; 
and  if  an  official  desires  to  become  a  candidate  for  a  seat  in  the 
House  of  Commons  he  must  resign  his  office  when  he  first  issues 
his  address  to  the  voters.     Political  abstention  is  secured  on 

1  J.  A.  Mcllhenny,  "The  Merit  System  and  the  Higher  Offices,"  in  Amer.  Polit. 
Set.  Rev.,  Aug.,  191 7. 

2  The  "returning  officers,"  who  have  charge  of  parliamentary  elections  in  the 
constituencies,  are  temporarily  disqualified;  but  they  do  not  belong  to  the  civil 
service.     See  p.  135. 


02  GO\  ERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

these  lines  partly  by  statute,  partly  b)   custom,  and  partly  by 
the  regulations  of  the  civil  service  itself.1 

i  The  besl  brief  account  of  the  permanenl  civil  service  is  Lowell,  Government 

of  i'.ntfand,  I,  145-104.     An  important  treatise  is  I ».  B.  Baton,  The  Civil 

■1  Britain  (New  Vork,  [880),  a  book  written  by  the  first  V.  S.  Civil  Service 
Commissioner  and  embodying  the  results  of  n  1  arried  on  in  England  1>\  the 

author  at  the  direction  of  President  Hayes.  It  was  a  leading  contribution  to  the 
movement  which  led  to  the  Pendleton  Act  of  [883.  As  a  history  and  analysis  of 
civil  service  reform  in  England,  it  is  now  superseded  by  R.  M 
of  Great  Britain  (New  York,  [914).  Useful  articles  arc  I'..  Jinks  "Patronage  and 
the  State,"  in  Cantor/;.  Rev.,  July,  1917;  I).  M.  Zimmern,  "The Civil Servi 
Women."  in  Polil.  Quar.,  Sept.,  [916;  and  !■',.  S.  Eialdane,  "Women  and  the  Civil 
Service,"  in  Fort.  Rev.,  Apr..  [918.  Sec  also  !•'.  (i.  Heath,  The  British  Civil  Service, 
Colonial,  Indian,  and  Diplomat!*  (While  l'lain>.  mi;'.  An  important  book  on  a 
special  phase  of  the  subject  is  A.  I..  Lowell  and  Ii.  M.  Stephens,  Colonic 

;    the  Selection  and  Training  of  Colonial  Officers  in  England,  Holland,  and 
France  (New  York,  1900). 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE   CABINET 

Privy  Council,  Ministry,  and  Cabinet.  —  A  correct  under- 
standing of  the  English  governmental  system,  and  especially 
of  the  manner  in  which  the  powers  of  the  crown  are  exercised, 
requires  that  three  closely  related  but  essentially  separate  in- 
stitutions be  clearly  distinguished :  (i)  the  Privy  Council, 
(2)  the  ministry,  (3)  the  cabinet.  As  has  been  pointed  out, 
the  Privy  Council  was,  from  the  fifteenth  century  onwards,  a 
group  of  men  who  gave  advice  to  the  king  and  assisted  to  some 
extent  in  the  supervision  of  administration.  The  number  of 
councilors  was  variable,  and  it  always  tended  to  become  too 
large  to  admit  of  the  requisite  dispatch  and  secrecy  ;  wherefore, 
as  has  been  explained,  the  king  fell  into  the  habit  of  taking  into 
his  confidence  only  certain  members  of  the  larger  body,  leaving 
the  others  to  the  routine  of  their  respective  offices  or  stations. 
Thus  arose  the  cabinet,  which  throughout  its  history  has  been 
only  an  inner  circle,  unknown  to  the  law,  of  the  older  and  larger 
Council.  The  Privy  Council  survives  to-day,  and  in  both  law 
and  theory  it  is  still  the  great  advisory  and  administrative 
agency  of  the  governmental  system.  A  cabinet  member  has 
authority  and  is  known  to  the  law  only  as  a  privy  councilor. 
In  point  of  fact,  however,  the  Council  is  now,  as  such,  only  a 
formal  institution.  It  never  meets  save  for  ceremonial  pur- 
poses, e.g.,  at  a  coronation ;  and  although  in  law  its  action  is 
necessary  to  many  great  measures  of  state,  notably  the  pro- 
mulgation of  orders  in  council,1  decisions  upon  all  matters  can 
be  made  in  its  name  by  as  few  as  three  of  its  members.  All 
cabinet  officers  belong  to  the  Council,  so  that  any  ordinary 
meeting  of  the  cabinet  fulfills  all  legal  requirements  for  a  meet- 
ing of  the  Council.  One  should  hasten  to  add  that  not  only  is 
the  cabinet  to  all  intents  and  purposes  a  committee  of  the 
Council,  but  there  are  other  committees  which  carry  on  con- 
tinuous and  important  work.     Thus  the  Judicial  Committee, 

1  On  the  nature  of  orders  in  council  see  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, II,  Pt.  i,  147-149. 

93 


94  GOVERNMENTS  OK   EUROPE 

formed  in  1833,  's  a  -u':^  quasi-tribunal  which  renders  final 
verdicl  (in  the  guise  of  advice  to  the  crown)  on  all  appeals  from 
courts  outside  the  United  Kingdom.1  Many  important  ad- 
ministrative hoards  and  commissions,  furthermore  for  ex- 
ample, the  Hoard  of  Trade  and  the  Board  of  Education - 
originated  as  Privy  Council  committees. 

All  members  of  the  Council  are  appointed,  by  the  crown,  and 
for  life;  most  of  them  gain  admission  by  their  appointment  to 
cabinet  offices.  The  number,  which  is  without  fixed  limit,  is 
now  about  three  hundred.  Councilors  include,  chiefly,  members 
of  cabinets,  present  and  past;  other  high  officers  of  state;  the 
two  archbishops  and  the  bishop  of  London;  several  peers  of 
eminence  ;  higher  judges  and  ex-judges ;  and  men  of  distinction 
in  literature,  art,  science,  law,  or  other  fields  of  endeavor,  upon 
whom  the  dignity  is  conferred  as  a  mark  of  honor.  The  legal 
head,  known  as  the  Lord  President  of  the  Council,  is  a  dignitary 
of  high  rank  who  regularly  acts  as  a  "  minister  without  port- 
folio." 2    All  members  bear  the  title  of  Right  Honorable. 

The  relation  of  the  personnel  of  the  ministry  and  of  the  cabinet 
to  that  of  the  Privy  Council  is  now  self-evident.  The  Council 
includes  all  of  the  cabinet  members,  and  usually  some  ministers 
who  stand  outside  of  the  cabinet  circle,  besides  a  much  larger 
number  of  persons  who  do  not  belong  to  "  the  Government,"  nor 
necessarily  to  the  party  in  power.  The  ministry  also  includes 
the  cabinet  group,  together  with  the  few  remaining  officials  of 
ministerial  rank  who  belong  to  the  Council,  but  in  the  main  is 
made  up  of  officials  who  have  places  in  neither  the  cabinet  nor 
the  Council. 

Composition  of  the  Cabinet.  —  The  inner  group  of  ministers, 
whose  members  individually  (with  three  or  four  exceptions) 
direct  the  affairs  of  the  main  departments,  and  collectively  shape 
the  policy  and  manage  the  conduct  of  the  government  as  a 
whole,  forms  the  cabinet.  This  is  the  most  characteristic  feature 
of  the  English  system.  Nevertheless,  the  cabinet  is  still  wholly 
unknown  to  the  law;  legally,  as  has  been  stated,  the  cabinet 
officer  derives  his  executive  function  from  his  appointment  to  a 
ministerial  post  and  his  advisory  function  from  his  membership 
in  the  Privy  Council.  The  composition  of  the  cabinet  is  deter- 
mined partly  by  custom,  partly  by  momentary  considerations 
of  expediency.  Certain  of  the  ministers  are  nowadays  invariably 
included  :  the  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury,  the  Lord  ^hancellor, 
the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  the  First  Lord  of  the  Admiralty, 

1  Sec  p.  218.  -  See  p.  104,  note  r, 


THE   CABINET  95 

and  ii.ll  of  the  secretaries  of  state.  Two  dignitaries  who  indi- 
vidually have  no  executive  functions,  i.e.,  the  Lord  President 
of  the  Privy  Council  and  the  Lord  Privy  Seal,1  are  likewise  always 
admitted.  Beyond  this,  the  make-up  of  the  group  is  left  to  the 
discretion  of  the  prime  minister,  whose  decision  as  to  whether 
to  invite  a  minister  to  sit  in  the  cabinet  may  be  determined  in 
deference  to  the  wishes  of  the  minister  himself,  or  by  the  im- 
portance of  the  office  in  question  at  the  moment,  or  by  party 
interest.  In  years  immediately  preceding  the  Great  War  the 
presidents  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  the  Board  of  Education,  and 
the  Local  Government  Board  were  regularly  included,  together 
with  the  Lord  Lieutenant  or  the  Chief  Secretary  for  Ireland.2 
The  Secretary  for  Scotland  and  the  Chancellor  of  the  Duchy  of 
Lancaster  were  usually  included,  the  Postmaster- General  and 
the  President  of  the  Board  of  Agriculture  frequently,  and  the 
First  Commissioner  of  Works  and  the  Lord  Chancellor  for 
Ireland  occasionally. 

There  has  never  been  a  fixed  number  of  members,  and  until 
recent  years  the  size  of  the  group  steadily  increased.  Eighteenth- 
century  cabinets  contained,  as  a  rule,  not  above  seven  to  ten 
members.  In  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  num- 
ber ran  up  to  thirteen  or  fourteen ;  the  second  cabinet  presided 
over  by  Lord  Salisbury,  at  its  fall  in  1892,  numbered  seventeen; 
and  most  of  the  time  from  1900  to  the  outbreak  of  the  Great 
War  there  were  twenty  members.  The  causes  of  this  increase 
include  pressure  from  ambitious  statesmen  for  admission  to 
the  influential  circle,  the  growing  necessity  of  giving  repre- 
sentation to  varied  elements  and  interests  within  the  dominant 
party,  the  multiplication  of  state  activities  which  call  for  or- 
ganization under  new  and  important  departments,  and  the 
desire  to  give  every  considerable  branch  of  the  administrative 
system  at  least  one  representative.  The  effect  has  been  to 
produce  a  certain  unwieldiness,  to  avoid  which,  it  will  be  re- 
called, the  cabinet  was  originally  created ;  and  for  some  years 
before  the  war  there  was  a  tendency  toward  the  rise  of  a  small 
inner  circle  which  should  bear  a  relation  to  the  whole  cabinet 
somewhat  analogous  to  that  which  the  early  cabinet  bore  to  the 

1  The  duties  of  this  official  are  nominal.  In  1870  Sir  Charles  Dilke  moved  to 
abolish  the  office  as  useless,  but  Gladstone  urged  the  desirability  of  having  in  the 
cabinet  at  least  one  man  who  should  not  be  burdened  with  the  management  of  a 
department,  and  the  motion  was  lost. 

2  In  theory  the  powers  of  the  executive  are  exercised  in  Ireland  by  the  Lord 
Lieutenant,  but  in  practice  they  devolve  upon  the  nominally  inferior  official,  the 
Chief  Secretary.     See  p.  286. 


96  G0\  ERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

overgrown  royal  council.  This  tendency  was  viewed  with  ap- 
prehension by  many  people  who  felt  that  the  concentration  of 
power  in  the  hands  of  an  "inner  cabinel  "  might  fail  to^  be 
accompanied  by  a  corresponding  concentration  of  responsibility. 
For  more  than  a  decade,  however,  criticism  of  the  inordinal 
size  of  the  cabinet  group  was  freely  voiced  upon  numerous 
occasions  and  by  many  observers.1  Unsatisfactory  experience 
during  the  early  stages  of  the  Great  War  led  not  only  to  the 
ls1  ruction  of  the  cabinet  on  a  coalition  basis,  but  to  a  drastic 
reduction  in  the  number  of  members;  the  regular  cabinet  was 
wholly  superseded  by  a  "  war  cabinet  "  of  rive  (later  six)  persons. 
Contrary  to  expectation  in  some  quarters,  this  proved  to  be 
only  a  temporary  arrangement.  In  less  than  a  year  after  the 
armistice,  the  cabinet  was  revived  on  its  earlier  lines,  save  that 
it  continued  to  be  a  coalition ;  and  the  problem  of  the  proper 
size  of  the  body  is  still  to  be  solved.2 

Appointment  of  the  Prime  Minister.'-5  —  When  a  new  ministry 
—  and  with  it,  of  course,  a  new  cabinet  —  is  to  be  made  up,  the 
first  step  is  the  naming  of  the  prime  minister.  Technically, 
the  choice  rests  with  the  king.  But  custom,  springing  from 
practical  necessity,  leaves,  as  a  rule,  no  room  whatever  for 
discretion  in  the  matter.  Promptly,  and  as  a  matter  of  course, 
the  king  sends  for  the  man  who  is  best  able  to  command  the 
support  of  the  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  asks 
him  to  make  up  a  ministry.  If  the  retiring  ministry  has  "  fallen,*' 
i.e.,  has  been  forced  out  of  office  by  the  loss  of  its  parliamentary 
majority,  the  new  premier  is  certain  to  be  the  recognized  leader 
of  the  party  which  formerly  has  played  the  role  of  opposition 
If  there  has  not  been  a  shift  in  party  status,  the  premiership 
will  be  bestowed  upon  some  one  of  the  colleagues,  at  least  upon 
one  of  the  fellow-partisans,  of  the  retiring  premier,  nominated, 
if  need  be,  by  the  chiefs  of  the  party.  Thus,  when  in  1894 
Gladstone  retired  from  office  on  account  of  physical  infirmity, 
the  Liberal  leaders  in  the  two  houses  caucused  on  the  question 
of  whether  he  should  be  succeeded  by  Sir  William  Vernon  Har- 
court  or  by  Lord  Rosebery.  They  recommended  Lord  Rose- 
bery,  who  was  forthwith  appointed  by  the  Queen.     If,  by  any 

1  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  1.  59;  Anson,  /.</.  '  and  Custom  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, I,  Pt.  i,  211. 

2  The  war  cabinet  is  described  below.     See  pp.  106-1 11. 

3  in  1  the  composition  and  functions  of  the  cabinet  are  de- 
scribed as  they  were  prior  to  the  Greal  War.  At  the  date  of  writing  (1920)  a  coali- 
tion ministry,  inherited  from  the  war  period,  is  still  inofhee.  But  there  isa  reason- 
able presumption  that  the  former  system  will  be  revived,  at  least  in  its  essentials. 


THE   CABINET  97 

circumstance,  the  premiership  should  fall  to  the  Opposition  at 
a  moment  when  the  leadership  of  this  element  is  in  doubt,  the 
crown  would  be  guided,  similarly,  by  the  informally  expressed 
will  of  the  more  influential  party  members.  While,  therefore, 
the  appointment  of  the  prime  minister  remains  almost  the  sole 
important  governmental  act  which  is  performed  personally  by 
the  sovereign,  even  here  the  substance  of  power  has  been  lost 
and  only  the  form  survives.1 

Selection  of  Other  Ministers  and  Cabinet  Members.  —  The 
remaining  members  of  both  ministry  and  cabinet  are  selected 
by  the  premier,  in  consultation,  as  a  rule,  with  leading  repre- 
sentatives of  the  party.  The  list  of  nominees  is  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  sovereign,  who  gives  it  the  necessary  formal  ap- 
proval, and  an  announcement  forthwith  appears  in  the  London 
Gazette  to  the  effect  that  the  persons  named  have  been  chosen  by 
the  crown  to  occupy  the  several  posts.  Officially,  there  is  no 
mention  of  the  "  cabinet."  In  the  selection  of  his  colleagues 
—  whether  they  are  to  be  simply  ministers  or  cabinet  members 
as  well  —  the  premier  theoretically  has  a  free  hand.  Practically 
he  is  bound  to  comply  with  numerous  principles  and  to  observe 
various  precedents  and  practical  conditions.  Two  principles, 
in  particular,  must  be  adhered  to  in  determining  the  structure 
of  every  cabinet.  All  of  the  members  must  have  seats  in  one 
or  the  other  of  the  two  houses  of  Parliament,2  and  all  must  be 
identified  with  the  party  in  power,  or  at  least  with  an  allied 
political  group.  There  was  a  time,  when  the  personal  govern- 
ment of  the  king  was  still  a  reality,  when  the  House  of  Commons 
refused  to  admit  to  its  membership  persons  who  held  office  under 
the  crown,  and  this  disqualification  found  legal  expression  as 
late  as  the  Act  of  Settlement  of  1701.3     With  the  ripening  of 

1  On  certain  occasions  —  notably  in  1852  and  1859  —  Queen  Victoria  determined 
by  her  personal  choice  which  of  two  or  more  leaders  in  the  ruling  party  should  be 
put  at  the  head  of  a  new  ministry.  But  it  is  doubtful  whether  any  future  sovereign 
will  have  an  opportunity  to  exercise  similar  discretion.  Compare  the  appointment 
of  the  prime  minister  in  France,  as  described  below  (see  p.  399). 

2  The  one  notable  instance  of  departure  from  this  rule  during  three  quarters  of 
a  century  preceding  the  Great  War  was  Gladstone's  tenure  of  the  post  of  Secretary 
of  State  for  the  Colonies  during  the  last  six  months  of  the  Peel  administration  in 
1846. 

3  A  clause  of  this  act  made  any  person  holding  an  office  or  place  of  profit  under 
the  crown  incapable  of  sitting  in  the  House  of  Commons.  The  cabinet  system  was 
now,  however,  taking  form,  and  Parliament  soon  perceived  how  inadvisable  it  was 
to  exclude  the  great  officers  of  state  from  the  chamber  in  which  they  could  most 
effectively  be  held  to  account.  Accordingly,  the  provision  was  modified  by  the  Place 
Act  of  1 707  so  that  members  of  the  House  of  Commons  appointed  to  offices  under 
the  crown  should  indeed  vacate  their  seats,  but  should  be  immediately  capable 
of  reelection.     Such  reelection  almost   invariably  follows  as  a  matter  of  course, 


98  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

parliamentary  government  in  the  eighteenth  century,  however, 
the  thing  that  was  formerly  regarded  as  objectionable  became 
highly  expedient,  it"  not  a  necessity.    When  once  the  ministers 

formed  the  real  executive  of  the  nation,  it  was  but  logical  that 
they  should  be  permitted  to  appear  on  the  floor  of  the  two  houses 

to  introduce  and  advocate  measures  and  to  explain  the  acts  of 
the  government.  Ministers  had  always  occupied  seats  in  the 
upper  chamber;  and  not  only  was  all  objection  to  their  appear- 
ance in  the  lower  chamber  removed,  but  by  custom  it  came  to 
be  an  indexible  rule  that  cabinet  officers,  and  indeed  the  ministers 
generally,  should  be  drawn  exclusively  from  the  membership  of 
the  two  houses.  If  it  is  desired  to  bestow  a  ministerial  posl 
upon  a  man  who  is  not  a  member  of  either  house,  the  difficulty 
may  be  got  around  either  by  making  him  a  peer,  which  would 
entitle  him  to  a  seat  in  the  House  of  Lords,  or  by  procuring  his 
election  to  a  seat  in  the  House  of  Commons. 

Since  the  days  of  Walpole,  who  was  himself  a  commoner,  the 
premiership  has  been  held  approximately  half  of  the  time  by 
commoners  and  half  of  the  time  by  peers.  Distribution  of  the 
other  cabinet  members  has  varied  greatly.  The  first  cabinet 
in  the  reign  of  George  III  contained  fourteen  members,  of  whom 
thirteen  had  seats  in  the  House  of  Lords ;  and  throughout  the 
eighteenth  century  peers  usually  preponderated  decisively.  The 
steadily  increasing  importance  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
however,  led.  —  especially  after  the  Reform  Act  of  1832  —  to 
the  selection  of  a  larger  proportion  of  members  from  the  lower 
chamber,  and  during  the  past  thirty  or  forty  years  cabinet 
positions  have  usually  been  divided  about  evenly  between  the 
two  houses.  A  statute  of  1864  curiously  prevents  more  than 
four  (now  five)  of  the  five  (now  six)  secretaries  of  state  from 
sitting  in  the  House  of  Commons;  and  the  Lord  Privy  Seal, 
the  Lord  High  Chancellor,  and  the  Lord  President  of  the  Council 
almost  invariably  belong  to  the  House  of  Lords.  Beyond  this, 
there  is  no  positive  requirement,  in  either  law  or  custom.  To 
fill  the  various  posts  the  premier  must  bring  together  the  best 
men  he  can  secure  —  not  necessarily  the  ablest,  but  those  who 
will  work  together  most  effectively  —  with  only  secondary  re- 
gard to  the  question  of  whether  they  sit  in  the  one  or  the  other 

and  without  opposition.  The  Representation  of  tin-  People  Act  of  1867  provided 
that  the  mere  transfer,  from  one  office  to  another  in  the  same  ministry,  of  a  person 
e  his  appointmenl  to  his  former  office,  shall  not  involve 
the  loss  of  l.i-  seat.  The  provisions  "i  the  Place  Art  were  suspended  in  several 
instances  during  tin-  Great  War.  (1.  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,  146; 
Moran,  Theory  and  Practice  of  the  English  Government,  108-109. 


THE   CABINET  99 

of  the  legislative  houses.  A  department  whose  chief  sits  in  the 
Commons  is  certain  to  be  represented  in  the  Lords  by  an  under- 
secretary or  other  spokesman,  and  vice  versa.  In  France  and 
other  continental  countries  which  have  a  cabinet  system,  ex- 
ecutive departments  are,  as  a  rule,  represented  in  Parliament  by 
their  presiding  official  only.  But  this  official  is  permitted,  as 
English  ministers  are  not,  to  appear  and  speak  on  the  floor  of 
either  chamber.1 

Other  Considerations  Determining  Appointment.  —  A  second 
general  principle  which  controls  in  making  up  both  a  ministry 
and  a  cabinet  is  that  of  party  harmony.  William  III  undertook 
to  govern  with  a  cabinet  in  which  there  were  both  Whigs  and 
Tories,  but  the  result  was  confusion  and  the  experiment  was 
abandoned.  Except  during  the  ascendancy  of  Walpole,  the 
cabinets  of  the  eighteenth  century  usually  embraced  men  of 
more  or  less  diverse  political  affiliations.  But  gradually  the 
conviction  took  root  that  in  the  interest  of  unity  and  efficiency 
the  political  solidarity  of  the  cabinet  group  is  indispensable. 
The  last  occasion  (prior  to  the  Great  War)  upon  which  it  was 
proposed  to  make  up  a  cabinet  from  utterly  diverse  political 
elements  was  in  1812.  The  scheme  was  rejected,  and  from  that 
day  to  191 5  cabinets  were  regularly  composed,  not  always  ex- 
clusively of  men  identified  with  a  single  political  party,  but  at 
least  of  men  who  were  in  substantial  agreement  upon  the  larger 
questions  of  policy,  and  who  expressed  willingness  to  cooperate 
in  carrying  out  a  given  program.  The  fundamental  requisite 
is  unity.  It  is  the  obligation  of  every  cabinet  member  to  agree, 
or  to  appear  to  agree,  with  his  colleagues.  If  he  is  unable  to 
do  this,  he  must  resign. 

In  the  selection  of  his  co-laborers  the  premier  works  under 
still  other  practical  restrictions.  One  of  them  is  the  well- 
established  rule  that  surviving  members  of  the  last  cabinet  of 
the  party,  in  so  far  as  they  are  in  active  public  life  and  desirous 
of  appointment,  shall  be  given  prior  consideration.  Members 
of  the  party,  furthermore,  who  have  come  into  special  promi- 
nence and  influence  in  Parliament  must  usually  be  included. 
In  truth,  as  Bagehot  points  out,  the  premier's  independent  choice 
is  apt  to  find  scope  not  so  much  in  the  determination  of  the 
cabinet's  personnel  as  in  the  distribution  of  offices  among  the 
members  selected;  and  even  here  he  will  often  be  obliged  to 
subordinate  his  wishes  to  the  inclinations,  susceptibilities,  and 
capacities  of  his  prospective  colleagues.     In  the  expressive  simile 

1  See  p.  439. 


ioo  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

of  Lowell,  the  premier's  task  is  "like  thai  of  constructing  a 
figure  out  of  Mocks  which  arc  too  numerous  for  the  purpose, 
and  which  arc  not  of  shapes  to  fit  perfectly  together."  ' 

Ministerial    Responsibility.       In    its    actual    operation    the 
English  cabinel  system,  down  to  the  Great  War  at  all  events, 
presented  three  salient  features :  (i)  the  responsibility  of  i  abinet 
ministers  to  Parliament ;    (2)  the  secrecy  of  cabinet  proceedings ; 
and   (3)  the  close  coordination  of  the  cabinet  group  under  the 
leadership  of  the  premier.     Every  minister,  whether  or  not  in 
the  cabinet,   is  responsible  individually   to   Parliament,  which 
in  effect  means  to  the  House  of  Commons,  for  all  of  his  public 
acts.     If  he  is  made  the  object  of  a  vote  of  censure  he  must 
retire.     In  the  earlier  eighteenth  century  the  resignation  of  a 
cabinet  officer  did  not  affect  the  tenure  of  his  colleagues ;    the 
first  cabinet  to  retire  as  a  body  was  that  of  Lord  North  in  1782. 
Subsequently,  however,  the  ministerial  group  so  developed  in 
compactness  that  in  relation  to  the  outside  world,  and  even 
to   Parliament,    the   individual   officer   came   to   be   effectually 
subordinated  to  the  whole.     Not  since  1866  has  a  cabinet  mem- 
ber retired  singly  in  consequence  of  an  adverse  parliamentary 
vote.     If  an  individual  minister  falls  into  serious  disfavor,  one 
of  two  things  almost  certainly  happens.     Either  the  offending 
member  is  persuaded  by  his  colleagues  to  modify  his  course  or 
to  resign  before  formal  parliamentary  censure  shall  have  been 
passed,  or  the  cabinet  as  a  whole  rallies  to  the  support  of  the 
minister  in  question  and  stands  or  falls  with  him.     This  is  but 
another  way  of  saying  that,  in  practice,  the  responsibility  of 
the  cabinet  is  collective  rather  than  individual.     This  responsi- 
bility covers  the  entire  range  of  acts  of  the  executive  branch  of 
the  government,  whether  regarded  as  acts  of  the  king  or  of  the 
ministers  themselves,   and   it  constitutes  the  most  distinctive 
feature   of   the   English   parliamentary  system.     Formerly   t he- 
only  means  by  which  ministers  could  be  held  to  account  by 
Parliament  was  impeachment.     With  the  development,  however, 
of   the   principle   of    ministerial    responsibility    as   a    necessary 
adjunct  to  and   instrumentality  of  parliamentary  government, 
the  occasional  and  violent  process  of  impeachment  was  superseded 
by  continuous,  inescapable,  and  pacific  legislative  supervision. 
I  he  impeachmenl  of  cabinet  ministers  may,  indeed,  be  regarded 
obsolete. 

A  fundamental  maxim  of  the  constitution   to-day  is  that   a 
cabinet  shall  continue  in  office  only  so  long  as  it  enjoys  the 

1  Government  of  England,  I,  57.     See  MacDonaugh,  Book  of  Parliament,  148-183. 


THE   CABINET  101 

confidence  and  support  of  a  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons. 
There  are  at  least  four  ways  in  which  a  parliamentary  majority 
may  manifest  its  dissatisfaction  with  a  cabinet,  and  thereby 
compel  its  resignation.  It  may  pass  a  simple  vote  of  "  want  of 
confidence,"  assigning  therefor  no  definite  reason.  It  may  pass 
a  vote  of  censure,  criticizing  the  cabinet  for  some  specific  act. 
It  may  defeat  a  measure  which  the  cabinet  advocates  and  de- 
clares to  be  of  vital  importance.  Or  it  may  pass  a  bill  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  advice  of  the  ministers.  The  cabinet  is  not  obliged 
to  give  heed  to  an  adverse  vote  in  the  Lords ;  but  when  any  of 
the  four  votes  mentioned  is  carried  in  the  lower  chamber,  the 
premier  and  his  colleagues  must  do  one  of  two  things  —  resign 
or  appeal  to  the  country.  If  it  is  clear  that  the  cabinet  has  lost 
the  support,  not  only  of  Parliament,  but  also  of  the  electorate, 
the  only  honorable  course  for  the  ministry  is  to  resign.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  there  is  doubt  as  to  whether  the  parliamentary 
majority  really  represents  the  country  upon  the  matter  at  issue, 
the  ministers  are  warranted  in  requesting  the  sovereign  to 
dissolve  Parliament  and  to  order  a  general  election.  In  such  a 
situation  the  ministry  continues  tentatively  in  office.  If  the 
elections  return  a  majority  prepared  to  support  the  ministers, 
the  cabinet  is  given  a  new  lease  of  life.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  new  parliamentary  majority  is  hostile,  no  course  is  open 
to  the  ministry  save  to  retire. 

Secrecy  of  Proceedings.  —  Steadily  responsible  to  the  House 
of  Commons  and  obligated  to  resign  collectively  when  no  longer 
able  to  command  a  working  majority  in  that  body,  the  cabinet 
must  at  all  times  seek  to  present  a  solid  and  imposing  front. 
Two  devices  to  this  end  have  been  secrecy  of  proceedings  and 
leadership  of  the  premier.  It  is  a  sufficiently  familiar  principle 
that  a  group  of  men  brought  together  to  agree  upon  and  execute 
a  common  policy  in  behalf  of  a  widespread  and  diverse  con- 
stituency will  be  more  likely  to  succeed  if  the  differences  that 
are  sure  to  appear  within  their  ranks  are  not  published  to  the 
world.  It  was  in  deference  to  this  fact  that  the  German  Bundes- 
rath  always  transacted  business  behind  closed  doors ;  and  it 
was  for  the  same  reason  that  the  public  was  excluded  from 
the  sittings  of  the  convention  which  framed  the  present  constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States.  Notices  of  meetings  of  the  English 
cabinet  and  the  names  of  members  present  appear  in  the  press,  but 
until  of  late  not  a  word  was  given  out,  officially  or  unofficially, 
concerning  the  subjects  discussed,  the  opinions  expressed,  or 
the  conclusions  arrived  at.     In  the  earlier  part  of  the  nineteenth 


10a  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

century  brief  minutes  of  the  proceedings  were  recorded.  But 
in  later  times  no  clerical  employee  was  allowed  to  be  present, 
and  n<>  formal  record  whatsoever  was  kept.1  For  knowled] 
past  transactions  members  had  to  rely  upon  their  own  or  their 
colleagues'  memories,  supplemented  at  times  by  privately  kept 
notes.  It  was.  indeed,  —  so  the  ex-premier,  Mr.  Asquith,  stated 
in  the  House  of  Commons  in  1916  —  "  the  inflexible,  unwritten 
rule  of  the  cabinet  that  no  member  should  take  any  note  or  record 
of  the  proceedings  except  the  prime  minister.'"  It  war  an 
nounced,  however,  on  this  same  occasion  that  a  different  plan 
was  to  be  followed  in  the  future,  that  minutes  of  the  proceedings 
were  to  be  kept,  and  that  a  record  of  every  decision  would  be 
sent  by  the  prime  minister's  secretary  to  every  member  of  the 
cabinet  and  to  any  other  minister  or  department  affected. 
Cabinet  meetings,  which  are  held  only  as  occasion  requires 
(usually  as  often  as  once  a  week  when  Parliament  is  in  session) 
are  entirely  informal.  There  is  not  even  a  fixed  place  for  them, 
the  members  being  gathered  sometimes  at  the  Foreign  Office, 
sometimes  at  the  premier's  official  residence  (Xo.  10,  Downing 
Street),  or,  as  circumstance  may  arise,  at  almost  any  convenient 
spot. 

Leadership  of  the  Premier.  —  The  unity  of  the  cabinet  is 
farther  safeguarded  and  emphasized  by  the  leadership  of  the 
prime  minister.  Long  after  the  rise  of  the  cabinet  to  controlling 
influence  in  the  state,  the  members  of  the  ministerial  body  con- 
tinued supposedly  upon  a  common  footing  in  respect  to  both 
rank  and  authority.  The  habitual  abstention  of  the  early 
Hanoverian  monarchs  from  attendance  at  cabinet  meetings, 
however,  left  the  group  lcaderless,  and  the  members  gradually 
came  to  recognize  a  virtual  presidency  on  the  part  of  one  of 
their  own  number.  In  time  what  was  a  mere  presidency  was 
converted  into  a  thoroughgoing  leadership,  in  short,  into  the 
premier's  office  of  to-day.  It  is  commonly  considered  that  the 
first  person  who  fulfilled  the  functions  of  prime  minister  in  the 
modern  sense  was  Sir  Robert  Walpole,  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury 
from  1715  to  1717  and  from  1721  to  1742.  The  term  "prime 
minister"  was  not  yet  in  common  use;  Walpole  disliked  the 
title  and  refused  to  allow  himself  to  be  called  by  it.  But  that 
the  realities  of  the  office  existed  is  indicated  by  a  motion  made 
in  the  Commons  attacking  Walpole  on  the  ground  that  he  had 

1  Similarly,  no  formal  record  is  kept  of  proceedings  of  the  president's  cahinet 
in  the  United  States.     On  the  secrecy  of   English  cabinet  proceedings  see  Low, 

Governance  of  England  (new  ed.),  34-43- 


THE   CABINET  103 

"  grasped  in  his  own  hands  every  branch  of  government ;  had 
attained  the  sole  direction  of  affairs ;  had  monopolized  all  the 
powers  of  the  crown ;  had  compassed  the  disposal  of  all  places, 
pensions,  titles,  and  rewards  "  —  almost  precisely,  as  one  writer 
puts  it,  what  the  present  premier  is  doing  and  is  expected  to  do.1 
By  the  time  of  the  establishment  of  the  ministry  of  the  younger 
Pitt,  in  1783,  the  ascendancy  of  the  premier  among  his  colleagues 
was  an  accomplished  fact  and  was  recognized  as  legitimate. 
The  essentials  of  his  position  may  be  regarded  as  substantially 
complete  when,  during  the  later  years  of  George  III,  the  rule 
became  fixed  that  in  making  up  a  ministry  the  king  should  merely 
ratify  the  choice  of  officials  made  by  the  premier. 

Not  until  1906  was  the  premier's  office  recognized  by  law.2 
But  through  more  than  a  century  no  other  public  position  in 
the  nation  has  been  comparable  with  it  in  volume  of  actual 
power.  Within  the  ministry,  more  particularly  the  cabinet, 
the  premier  is  the  guiding  force.  He  presides,  as  a  rule,  at 
cabinet  meetings ;  he  advises  with  colleagues  upon  matters 
affecting  the  administration's  welfare ;  and,  while  he  may  shrink 
from  doing  it,  he  can  require  of  his  colleagues  that  they  accept 
his  views,  with  the  alternative  of  his  resignation  or  theirs.3  He 
■occupies  one  of  the  high  offices  of  state,  usually  that  of  First 
Lord  of  the  Treasury ;  and,  although  ordinarily  his  own  portfolio 
will  not  absorb  much  of  his  time  or  energy,  he  will  expect  to 
exercise  a  general  supervision,  and  even  a  certain  amount  of 
control,  over  all  of  the  departments  in  which  his  appointees  have 

1  Moran,  Theory  and  Practice  of  the  English  Government,  99. 

2  This  was  done  in  a  statute  fixing  the  order  of  precedence  in  state  ceremonials. 
A  royal  proclamation  of  December  2,  1905,  however,  gave  "Our  Prime  Minister" 
precedence  next  after  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  Lord  High  Chancellor, 
and  the  Archbishop  of  York.  For  the  full  order  of  precedence  see  Hazell's  Annual 
and  Almanac,  1919,  p.  158. 

3  The  resignation  of  the  premier  terminates  ipso  facto  the  life  of  the  ministry.  An 
excellent  illustration  of  the  accustomed  subordination  of  individual  differences  of 
opinion  to  the  interests  of  cabinet  solidarity  is  afforded  by  some  remarks  made 
by  Mr.  Asquith,  December  4,  1911,  to  a  deputation  of  the  National  League  for  Op- 
posing Woman  Suffrage.  The  deputation  had  called  to  protest  againstthe  Govern- 
ment's announced  purpose  to  attach  a  suffrage  amendment  (if  carried  in  the  House 
of  Commons)  to  a  forthcoming  measure  of  franchise  reform.  The  Premier  explained 
that  he  was,  and  always  had  been,  of  the  opinion  that  "the  grant  of  the  parliamen- 
tary franchise  to  women  in  this  country  would  be  a  political  mistake  of  a  very 
grievous  kind."  "So  far,"  he  continued,  "we  are  in  complete  harmony  with  one 
another.  On  the  other  hand,  I  am,  as  you  know,  for  the  time  being  the  head  of  the 
Government,  in  which  a  majority  of  my  colleagues,  a  considerable  majority  of  my 
colleagues  — ■  I  may  say  that  without  violating  the  obligation  of  cabinet  secrecy 
...  — ■  are  of  a  different  opinion ;  and  the  Government  in  those  circumstances  has 
announced  a  policy  which  is  the  result  of  their  combined  deliberations,  and  by 
which  it  is  the  duty  of  all  their  members,  and  myself  not  least,  to  abide  loyally. 
That  is  the  position,  so  far  as  I  am  personally  concerned." 


io4  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

been  placed.1  The  growth  of  the  number  of  departments  and 
ministerial  offices  in  the  past  half-century  lias,  of  course,  aug 
tnented  the  task  of  supervision  ;  and  the  difficulty  is  still  farther 
increased  when  the  premier  chooses,  as  did  Lord  Salisbury  (who 
Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  as  well  as  premier, 
from  [887  to  [892  and  from  [895  to  [900),  to  take  an  important 
executive  department  for  himself.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
premier's  supervisory  function  tends  to  be  diminished,  as  Pal- 
merston  once  lamented,-  in  times  when  the  departments  are  in 
the  hands  of  conspicuously  able  men. 

The  prime  minister  is,  furthermore,  the  link  between  tin- 
cabinet  and,  on  the  one  hand,  the  crown,  and,  on  the  other, 
Parliament.  On  behalf  of  the  cabinet  he  advises  with  the 
sovereign,  communicating  full  information  concerning  ministerial 
acts  and  synopses  of  the  daily  debates  in  Parliament.  In  the 
house  of  which  he  is  a  member  he  represents  the  cabinet  as  a 
whole,  makes  such  statements  as  are  necessary  concerning 
general  aspects  of  the  Government's  policy,  and  speaks,  as  a  rule, 
upon  every  general  or  important  projected  piece  of  legislation. 
A  premier  who  belongs  to  the  House  of  Commons  is,  of  course, 
more  advantageously  situated  than  one  who  sits  in  the  House 
of  Lords.  The  latter  must  trust  a  lieutenant  to  represent  him 
and  carry  out  his  instructions  in  the  place  where  the  great  legis- 
lative battles  are  fought;  and  this  lieutenant,  the  Government 
leader  in  the  House,  tends  strongly  to  draw  into  his  own  hands 
a  part  of  the  authority  belonging  to  the  cabinet's  official  head. 
During  Lord  Salisbury's  tenure  of  the  premiership  this  difficulty 
was  largely  obviated  by  the  fact  that  the  Government  leader  in 
the  lower  chamber  was  the  premier's  own  nephew,  Mr.  Balfour. 
But,  as  Gladstone  once  wrote,  "  the  overweight  of  the  House 
of  Commons  is  apt,  other  things  being  equal,  to  bring  its  leader 
inconveniently  near  in  power  to  a  prime  minister  who  is  a  peer."  8 

During  the  decade  preceding  the  Great  War  the  prime  minister 
drew  fresh  importance  from  his  position  as  president  of  both 

1  Inasmuch  as  the  cabinel  is  historically  and  legally  only  a  committee  «>f  the 
Privy  Council,  it  would  simplify  matters,  as  Low  points  oul  {Governance  of  England, 

155),  if  the  Lord  President  of  the  Council  were  also  the  prime  minister;  and  in  1894 
Lord  Rosebcry,  upon  assuming  the  premiership,  took  for  himself  the  Lord  Presi 
dent's  titular  position.  Usage,  however,  lias  not  developed  on  these  lines; 
and  a  practical  obstacle  is  the  strong  tradition  that  the  Lord  President  shall  be  a 
member  of  the  upper  house.  In  France  and  other  continental  countries  the 
premier  is  offic  iallv  president  of  the  council  of  ministers.  The  same  is  true  in  the 
British  self  governing  colonies. 

■  E.  \-M>  .  Life  'in,!  Correspondence  of  Henry  John  Temple,  Viscount  Palmer- 
ston,  II,  257. 

3  Gleanings  />/  Past  Years  (New  York,  1878),  I,  242. 


THE   CABINET  105 

the  Imperial  Conference  and  the  cabinet  committee  on  imperial 
defense ; 1  and  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  add  that  the  extraor- 
dinary demands  of  war  time  gave  him,  at  least  for  the  time 
being,  new  leadership  and  an  unprecedented  measure  of  inde- 
pendent authority.2 

The  Cabinet's  Central  Position.  —  In  the  English  govern- 
mental system  the  cabinet  is  in  every  sense  the  keystone  of  the 
arch.  Its  functions  are  both  executive  and  legislative,  and 
indeed,  to  employ  the  expressive  figure  of  Bagehot,  it  is  the 
hyphen  that  joins,  the  buckle  that  binds,  the  executive  and  the 
legislative  departments  together.3  As  has  been,  pointed  out, 
the  uses  of  the  sovereign  are  by  no  means  wholly  ornamental. 
None  the  less,  the  actual  executive  is  the  cabinet.  It  is  within 
the  cabinet  circle  that  executive  and  administrative  policies  are 
decided  upon,  and  it  is  the  cabinet  ministers  and  their  subor- 
dinates in  the  several  departments  that  carry  these  policies,  and 
the  laws  of  the  land  generally,  into  effect.  On  the  other  side, 
the  cabinet  members  not  only  occupy  seats  in  one  or  the  other 
of  the  two  houses  of  Parliament;  they  direct,  individually  and 
collectively,  almost  the  entire  work  of  legislation.  They  — 
primarily  the  prime  minister  —  prepare  the  Speech  from  the 
Throne,  in  which  at  the  opening  of  a  parliamentary  session  the 
state  of  the  country  is  reviewed  and  a  program  of  legislation  is 
outlined.  They  formulate,  introduce,  explain,  and  advocate 
needful  legislative  measures  upon  all  manner  of  subjects ;  and 
although  bills  may  be  submitted  in  either  house  by  non-minis- 
terial members,  it  has  become  an  unwritten  rule  that  measures 
of  large  importance  will  receive  the  serious  attention  of  the 
houses  only  if  they  emanate  from,  or  at  all  events  have  the 
active  support  of,  the  cabinet.  Statistics  show  that  measures 
introduced  by  private  members  have  little  chance  of  being  passed, 
especially  if  they  deal  with  large  or  controversial  matters.4 

In  effect,  the  cabinet  forms  a  parliamentary  committee  chosen, 
as  Bagehot  bluntly  puts  it,  to  rule  the  nation.  If  a  cabinet 
group  does  not  represent  the  ideas  and  purposes  of  Parliament  as 
a  whole,  it  at  least  represents  the  ideas  of  the  majority  of  the 
dominant  chamber ;  and  that  is  sufficient  to  give  it,  during  its 
tenure  of  office,  a  thorough  command  of  the  situation.     The 

1  See  p.  108. 
_  -  On  the  premiership  see  Low,  Governance,  Chap.  ix.     A  valuable  study  is  M. 
Sibert,  Etude  stir  le  premier  ministre  en  Angleterre  depnis  scs  origines  jnsqu'd  Vepoque. 
content  poraine  (Paris,  1909). 

3  English  Constitution  (new  ed.),  79. 

4  See  p.  179. 


106  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

basal  fact  of  the  political  system  is  rule  by  party  majority,  and 
within  the  party  majority  the  power  that  governs  is  the  cabinet. 
"  The  machinery/'  says  Lowell,  "  is  one  of  wheels  within  wheels  ; 
the  outside  ring  consisting  of  the  party  that  has  a  majority  in 
the  House  of  Commons;  the  next  ring  being  the  ministry, 
which  contains  the  men  who  are  most  active  within  that  party  ; 
and  the  smallest  of  all  being  the  cabinet,  containing  the  real 
leaders  or  chiefs.  By  this  means  is  secured  that  unity  of  party 
action  which  depends  upon  placing  the  directing  power  in  the 
hands  of  a  body  small  enough  to  agree,  and  influential  enough 
to  control."  ! 

The  War  Cabinet,  1916-19.  —  It  goes  without  saying  that 
the  outbreak  of  the  Great  War  in  19 14  brought  upon  the  cabinet, 
as  upon  all  parts  of  the  governmental  system,  an  unexpected 
and  fearful  strain.  By  degrees  the  national  administration  was 
transformed  almost  beyond  recognition.  New  duties  fell  to 
the  old  departments,  entailing  the  creation  of  new  divisions  and 
sections  and  an  enormous  increase  in  the  number  of  officials 
and  the  size  of  the  staffs  employed.  New  governmental  agencies 
sprang  up  on  all  sides,  including  the  war  trade  department,  the 
ministry  of  munitions,  and  the  board  of  control  for  the  liquor 
traffic  in  1915,  the  ministries  of  food  control,  shipping  control, 
pensions,  labor,  and  blockade  in  1916,  and  the  departments  of 
national  service -and  reconstruction  in  191 7.  But  more  remark- 
able still  were  the  changes  wrought  in  the  composition  and 
functioning  of  the  cabinet. 

The  first  important  step  toward  cabinet  reconstruction  was 

1  Government  of  England,  I,  56.  For  farther  consideration  of  the  cabinet,  see 
Chap,  xi  below.  The  best  discussion  of  the  organization,  functions,  and  rela- 
tionships of  the  cabinet  is  Lowell,  op.  cit:,  I,  Chaps,  ii-iii,  xvii-xviii,  xxii-xxiii. 
Other  good  general  accounts  are  Low,  Governance  of  England,  Chaps,  ii-iv,  viii-ix; 
Moran,  English  Government,  Chaps,  iv-ix  ;  Anson,  Law  an.!  ( 'ustom  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, II,  Pt.  i,  Chap,  ii;  Maitland,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  387-430, 
and  Dupriez,  Les  minis tres,  I,  36-138.  A  detailed  and  still  valuable  survey  is 
Todd,  Parliamentary  Government,  Parts  iii-iv.  A  brilliant  study  is  Bagehot, 
English  Constitution,  especially  Chaps,  i,  vi-ix.  The  growth  of  the  cabinet  is  well 
described  in  Blauvelt,  Development  of  Cabinet  Government  in  England;  and  two 
monographs  of  value  are  P.  le  Vasseur,  Le  cabinet  britannique  sons  la  reine  Victoria 
(Paris,  1902),  and  W.  Evans-Gordon,  The  Cabinet  and  War  (London,  1904).  Au- 
thoritative and  interesting  discussions  are  to  be  found  in  Gladstone,  Gleanings  of 
Past  Years,  I;  Lord  Rosebery,  Robert  Peel  (London,  1899);  J.  Morley,  Walpole 
(London,  1899);  ibid.,  Life  of  William  Ewart  Gladstone  (London.  1903),  II-III. 
A.  West,  "  Xo.  10  Downing  Street"  in  Cornhill  .]fag.,  Jan.,  1904 ;  "  Editor,"  Cabinet 
Government,"  in  Edinb.  Rev.,  Oct.,  1915;  and  A.  V.  Hicey,  "Comparison  between 
Cabinet  Government  and  Presidential  Government,"  in  Nineteenth  Cent.,  Jan., 
1919,  are  informing  articles.  For  an  extended  bibliography,  see  Seleet  List  of  Books 
on  the  Cabinets  of  England  and  America  (Washington,  1903),  compiled  in  the 
Library  of  Congress  under  the  direction  of  A.  P.  C.  Griffin. 


THE   CABINET  107 

the  formation,  in  1915,  of  a  "  coalition  "  cabinet,  which  got 
away  from  the  usual  party  basis  and  brought  together  repre- 
sentatives of  all  parties,  who  undertook  to  sink  their  differences 
in  a  common  leadership  of  the  nation  in  its  great  crisis.  The 
coalition  served  many  useful  purposes.  But  experience  showed 
that  a  cabinet  of  twenty-three  members,  whatever  might  be 
said  for  it  in  times  of  peace,  was  not  adapted  to  the  expeditious 
and  successful  management  of  a  nation's  affairs  in  time  of  war. 
The  upshot  was  a  drastic  and  somewhat  spectacular  reorganiza- 
tion in  December,  1916,  which  resulted  in  the  displacement  of 
the  large  coalition  cabinet  by  a  "  war-cabinet  "  of  five  members. 
Naturally,  the  coalition  principle  was  maintained,  and  the  new 
cabinet  —  consisting  of  Mr.  Lloyd  George,  the  prime  minister ; 
Lord  Curzon,  President  of  the  Council ;  Lord  Milner  and  Mr. 
Henderson,  ministers  without  portfolio ;  and  Mr.  Law,  Chan- 
cellor of  the  Exchequer  and  Government  leader  in  the  House  of 
Commons  —  was  composed  of  one  Liberal,  one  Labor  member, 
and  three  Unionists. 

From  as  far  back  as  1904  there  had  been  a  cabinet  committee 
on  imperial  defense,1  and  in  1915-16  this  body,  renamed  the 
"  war  committee,"  was  several  times  reorganized.  It  rendered 
valuable  service,  and  its  recommendations  were  practically 
certain  to  be  adopted  by  the  cabinet.  But,  starting  with  five 
or  six  members,  it  grew  to  be  almost  as  large  as  the  cabinet 
itself;  and  the  action  taken  in  December,  1916,  was  intended 
to  restore  deliberation  upon  military  policy  to  a  small,  workable 
group.  It  was  intended  also  to  vest  this  critically  important 
function  in  a  body  which  should  have  the  power  to  act  upon  its 
own  decisions,  and  withal  upon  a  body  composed  of  men  who 
should  not  be  obliged  to  formulate  great  policies  amidst  the 
distractions  of  administrative  and  parliamentary  duties.  Hence 
the  decision  to  merge  the  war  committee  in  a  new  sort  of  cabinet 
—  a  cabinet  of  five  members,  of  whom  only  one  should  hold  an 
important  administrative  office.  The  prime  minister  was  to 
relinquish  his  personal  leadership  in  the  House  of  Commons,  in 
order  to  give  his  entire  time  to  the  general  problems  of  the  war. 

Under  this  plan  the  organic  separation  of  powers  which  really 
is  present  in  the  English  system  of  government  became  a  personal 
separation  also.2    Parliament  considered  and  passed  legislative 

1  This  committee,  indeed,  was  reorganized  in  the  year  mentioned  from  a  "com- 
mittee on  national  defense  "  first  appointed  in  1895.  H.  E.  Egerton,  "  The  Commit- 
tee of  Imperial  Defense,"  in  Polit.  Quar.,  Feb.,  1915. 

2  See  p.  56. 


io8  GOYKRXMKNTS   OF    l.l  Kol'l. 

and  fiscal  measures  in  the  absence  of  all,  or  practically  all,  of  the 
cabinet  officers  —  even  though  there  never  was  a  time  when  the 
.n  tions  of  the  houses  were  so  completely  dictated  by  the  cabinet. 
The  cabinet  confined  'itself  substantially  to  determination  of 
policy  relating  to  the  conduct  of  the  war,  and  to  the  exercise  ol 
broad  executive  powers,  which  it  wielded  with  a  minimum  of 
restraint  from  Parliament.  The  work  of  administration  was 
carried  on  by  ministers  and  boards  that,  standing  quite  outside 
Of  the  cabinet,  had  no  direct  voice  in  the  framing  of  either  ex- 
ecutive or  legislative  policy.  It  was  mainly  because  of  this 
new  isolation  of  each  part  of  the  government  from  the  other 
parts  that  the  arrangements  for  cabinet  records  and  communica- 
tions  already  referred  to  were  introduced.1  A  secretariat  was 
organized  ;  minutes  were  systematically  kept ;  and  full  informa- 
tion was  promptly  sent  to  every  minister  who  was  affected  by  a 
decision  reached.  Furthermore,  the  practice  of  admitting  minis- 
ters and  other  outsiders  to  a  share  in  the  discussions  was  early 
adopted  ;  and  publicity  of  a  sort  never  before  known  was  pro- 
vided for  through  the  publication  of  annual  cabinet  reports.2 

With  its  membership  increased  to  six,  and  with  occasional 
changes  in  personnel,  the  war  cabinet  continued  at  the  head  of 
the  government  throughout  the  remainder  of  the  conflict  and 
for  almost  a  year  after  the  armistice.  Furthermore,  in  191 7  the 
prime  ministers  of  the  five  self-governing  colonies,  together  with 
representatives  of  India,  were  invited  to  attend  a  series  of  special 
meetings  of  the  body,  held  in  conjunction  with  a  new  Imperial 
conference ;  and  thus  arose  the  novel  and  interesting  "  Imperial 
war  cabinet,"  which  held  two  subsequent  series  of  meetings  in 
the  summer  and  autumn  of  1918.3  These  reconstructions  were 
accomplished  by  entirely  informal  and  extra-legal  processes. 
Cabinet  government  in  England  rests  on  convention,  and  can 
be  modified,  and  even  revolutionized,  without  changes  in  the 
law.  Hence  no  act  of  Parliament  was  passed,  and  no  proclama- 
tion or  order  in  council  was  issued,  establishing,  or  even  an- 
nouncing, the  new  machinery.  General  Smuts,  representing 
the  South  African  Union,  sat  as  a  member  of  the  smaller  British 

ee  p.  102. 
2  These  reports  were  printed  as  parliamentary  papers  :  Report  of  the  War  Cabinet 
for  the  Year  TQ17  (Cd.  9005,  1918),  and  Report  of  the  War  Cabinet  for  igi8  (Cd. 

325>  ' 

iort  of  the  War  Cabinet  for  iuij,  5  10.     On  the  Imperial  conferem 
Extracts  from  Minutes  of  Proceedings  and  Papers  Laid  beforetbe  Conference  [of  191  ~l- 
Cd.  8566,  1017.     Documentary  material-  relating  to  the  sessions  of  1918  are  pre- 
sented in  <  Id.  91  77,  1918. 


THE  CABIN ET  109 

war  cabinet  from  the  summer  of  1917  to  the  end  of  1918,  although 
he  was,  of  course,  neither  a  minister  nor  a  member  of  Parlia- 
ment. But  again  no  law  was  violated;  for  it  is  only  custom 
that  requires  cabinet  officers  to  be  members  of  Parliament. 

The  war  cabinet's  methods  of  work  are  fully  described,  not 
only  in  its  published  reports,  but  in  certain  speeches  of  its  mem- 
bers on  the  floor  of  Parliament.1     The  body  met  every  day,  often 
two  or  three  times  a  day,  and  hence,  for  all  practical  purposes, 
was  in  session  continuously.     Part  of  the  time  was  given  to 
hearing  reports,  including  a  daily  summary  of  the  military  situa- 
tion.    Part  was  given  to  discussion  of  military  policy  and  of 
public  questions,  participated  in  by  the  members  alone  and 
behind  closed  doors.     But  most  of  the  sittings  were  taken  up 
largely  with  hearings  and  discussions,  attended  and  participated 
in  by  ministers,  military  and  naval  experts,  and  persons  of  many 
sorts  and  connections  who  were  invited  to  appear.     Thus,  if 
the  agenda  of  the  day  called  for  a  consideration  of  diplomatic 
questions,  the  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  accompanied 
perhaps  by  one  or  more  of  his  under-secretaries  or  other  aids  and 
subordinates,  would  be  likely  to  be  present.     "  The  majority 
of  the  sessions  of  the  war  cabinet,"  says  the  Report  for  1917, 
"  consist,  therefore,  of  a  series  of  meetings  between  members  of 
the  war  cabinet  and  those  responsible  for  executive  action  at 
which   questions  of  policy   concerning  those  departments  are 
discussed    and   settled.     Questions   of   overlapping   or    conflict 
between  departments  are  determined  and  the  general  lines  of 
policy  throughout  every  branch  of  the  administration  coordinated 
so  as  to  form  part  of  a  consistent  war  plan.     Ministers  have  full 
discretion  to  bring  with  them  any  experts,  either  from  their  own 
departments  or  from  outside,  whose  advice  they  consider  would 
be  useful."  2     In  pursuance  of  this  work  of  coordination,  scores 
of  special  committees  were  set  up,  consisting  usually  of  the 
heads  of  the  departments  most  concerned,  under  the  chairman- 
ship of  a  member  of  the  war  cabinet.3     Finally,  it  is  to  be  ob- 
served that-all  of  the  principal  ministers  were  occasionally  con- 
voked in  a  "  plenum  of  the  cabinet  "  for  the  consideration  of 
great  public  questions  such  as  the  Irish  situation  and  the  Repre- 
sentation of  the  People  Bill,  although  even  on  these  matters  the 
final  choice  of  policy  lay  with  the  war  cabinet. 

1  Notably  one  by  Lord  Curzon  in  the  House  of  Lords  on  June  19,  1918  {Pari. 
Deb.,  5U1  series,  Lords,  xxx,  263  ff.). 

2  Cd.  9005,  1918,  p.  2. 

3  For  example,  the  war  priorities  committee,  the  economic  defense  and  develop- 
ment committee,  the  committee  on  home  affairs,  and  the  demobilization  committee. 


no  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

So  long  as  hostilities  continued,  the  war  cabinet  had,  indeed, 
the  powers  of  an  autocrat.  It  recognized  an  ultimate  respon- 
sibility to  the  Bouse  of  Commons.  But  it  was  practically 
independent,  and  it   is  doubtful  whether  it  could   have  been 

overthrown.  Parliament,  already  shorn  of  real  initiative,  and 
heavily  depleted  by  war  service,  became  a  mere  machine  for  the 
registration  of  executive  edicts.  After  the  armistice,  however, 
the  situation  changed.  Criticism  of  the  war  cabinet  as  an 
arbitrary  "  junto,"  long  repressed,  broke  forth;  and  the  new- 
parliament  elected  in  December,  1918,  although  containing  a 
huge  Government  majority,  showed  much  independence  of 
spirit.  The  end  of  the  war  cabinet  began  to  be  both  prophesied 
and  demanded,  and  the  premier  himself  intimated  that  such  a 
change  was  not  unlikely  to  come.1  After  the  Peace  Conference 
convened  at  Paris,  in  January,  1910,  only  three  members  of  the 
governing  group  were  left  in  England;  and  Mr.  Law  —  who  in 
the  absence  of  Mr.  Lloyd  George  acted  as  a  sort  of  deputy  prime 
minister,  began  to  summon  ministerial  conferences  attended  by 
twenty  or  thirty  persons,  and  therefore  bearing  a  strong  re- 
semblance to  the  cabinet  of  pre-war  days.  Upon  resuming  the 
reins  in  Downing  Street,  in  midsummer,  Mr.  Lloyd  George 
made  it  known  that  the  war  cabinet  was  soon  to  be  superseded  ; 
and  for  some  weeks  the  details  of  the  impending  reorganization 
absorbed  much  of  his  thought.  The  cabinet  in  its  new  form 
had  served  a  useful  purpose.  But  it  was  not  conspicuously 
successful  in  coordinating  the  work  of  the  different  departments, 
and  it  virtually  abrogated  the  principle  of  the  collective  responsi- 
bility of  the  ministers  for  the  acts  of  the  Government.  Its 
abandonment,  in  its  present  form  at  all  events,  was  almost 
universally  desired. 

The  contemplated  reconstruction  raised,  however,  two  difficult 
questions.  How  large  should  the  reorganized  cabinet  be  made.-' 
And  should  the  principle  of  party  solidarity  within  the  cabinet 
be  revived?  Even  if  only  the  ministers  who  were  heads  of 
departments  were  brought  in,  there  would  be  thirty  members. 
But  pre-war  cabinets  had  never  contained  more  than  twenty- 
two  persons;  that  number  had  usually  been  considered  too 
large;  the  political  history  of  1015-16  had  vividly  demonstrated 
the  disadvantages  of  a  large  cabinet;     and  the  Machinery  of 

1  In  announcing  the  new  coalition  government  formed  after  the  elections  he  said 

(January  10,  1919)  that  the  war  cabinet  would  be  continued  until  there  should 
have  been  "more  time  to  make  permanent  peace  arrangements."  London  Times, 
Jan.  ii,  1919. 


THE   CABINET  m 

Government  Committee  of  the  Ministry  of  Reconstruction  was 
urging  that  for  the  proper  performance  of  its  functions  the  cabinet 
should  consist  of  not  more  than  twelve  —  indeed,  preferably 
ten  —  members.1  Mr.  Lloyd  George's  own  idea  was  that  only 
twelve  of  the  most  important  department  heads  should  be 
admitted,  which  would  mean  a  cabinet  of  the  same  size  as  that 
over  which  Disraeli  presided  in  1874-80.  He  found  it  not 
feasible  to  adhere  to  this  plan,  however,  and  as  the  new  cabinet 
gradually  took  form,  in  October,  19 19,  it  steadily  approached 
the  proportions  of  pre-war  days  and  finally  attained  a  member- 
ship of  twenty.  The  secretariat  set  up  in  1915  was  wisely  pre- 
served, and  formal  records  of  proceedings,  although  not  published, 
continue  to  be  kept.  It  is  unlikely  that  the  old  methods  of 
transacting  business  will  ever  be  restored,  and  in  that  case  the 
war  cabinet  experiment  will  have  had  lasting  and  wholesome 
results.  To  the  date  of  writing  (1920),  however,  the  coalition 
principle  has  been  maintained ;  so  that  the  cabinet  system  does 
not  yet  function  as  it  formerly  did,  although  there  are  growing 
indications  that  cabinets  formed  with  a  view  to  party  unity  will 
presently  reappear.2 

1  See  p.  89. 

2  On  the  war  cabinet  see  J.  A.  Fairlie,  British  War  Administration  (Xew  York, 
I9T9)>  3I-58  (also  in  Mich.  Laic  Rev.,  May,  1918) ;  R.  Schuyler,  "The  British  War 
Cabinet,"  in  Polit.  Sci.  Quar.,  Sept.,  1918,  and  "The  British  Cabinet,  1916-1919," 
ibid.,  Mar.,  1920;  A.  V.  Dicey,  "The  New  English  War  Cabinet  as  a  Constitu- 
tional Experiment,"  in  Harvard  Law  Rev.,  June,  1917 ;  H.  W.  Massingham,  "Lloyd 
George  and  his  Government,"  in  Yale  Rev.,  July,  1917;  Anon.,  "The  Recent 
Political  Crisis,"  in  Quar.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1917;  S.  Low,  "The  Cabinet  Revolution," 
in  Fortn.  Rev.,  Feb.,  191 7  ;  F.  Piggott,  "The  Passing  of  the  Cabinet,"  in  Nineteenth 
Cent.,  Feb.,  1917;  H.  Spender,  "  The  British  Revolution,"  in  Contemp.  Rev.,  May, 
1917 ;  London  Times  Hist,  and  Cyclop,  of  the  War,  Parts  Ix  and  exxvii ;  J.  Barthelemy, 
"La  gouvernement  par  les  specialistes  et  la  recente  experience  anglaise"  in  Rev.  Sci. 
Polit.,  Apr.,  1918.  The  reports  of  the  cabinet  for  1917  and  1918  have  been  cited 
(p.  108,  note  2). 


CHAPTER   VIII 

PARLIAMENT:    THE   HOUSE   OF   COMMONS 

THE  Parliament  which  sits  at  Westminster  is  not  only  the  chief 
organ  of  English  democracy  but  the  oldest,  the  largest,  and  the 
most  powerful  of  modern  legislative  assemblages;  it  is.  withal, 
in  a  very  true  sense,  the  mother  of  parliaments.  Speaking 
broadly,  it  originated  in  the  thirteenth  century,  became  definitely 
organized  in  two  houses  in  the  fourteenth  century,  wrested  the 
control  of  the  nation's  affairs  from  the  king  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  and  underwent  a  thoroughgoing  democratization  in 
the  nineteenth  and  twentieth  centuries.  The  jurisdiction  which, 
step  by  step,  the  two  houses  have  acquired  has  been  broadened 
until  it  includes  practically  the  whole  domain  of  government; 
and  within  this  enormous  expanse  of  political  control  the  power 
of  the  chambers  is,  as  we  have  seen,  absolutely  unrestricted, 
in  law  and  in  fact.  "  The  British  Parliament,  .  .  .  "  writes 
Eryce,  "  can  make  and  unmake  any  and  every  law,  change  the 
form  of  government  or  the  succession  to  the  crown,  interfere 
with  the  course  of  justice,  extinguish  the  most  sacred  private 
rights  of  the  citizen.  Between  it  and  the  people  at  large  there 
is  no  legal  distinction,  because  the  whole  plenitude  of  the  people's 
rights  and  powers  resides  in  it,  just  as  if  the  whole  nation  were 
present  within  the  chamber  where  it  sits.  In  point  of  legal 
theory  it  is  the  nation,  being  the  historical  successor  of  the  folk 
moot  of  our  Teutonic  forefathers.     Both  practically  and  legally, 

t  is  to-day  the  only  and  the  sufficient  depository  of  the  authority 
of  the  nation;  and  it  is  therefore,  within  the  sphere  of  law, 
irresponsible  and  omnipotent."  '  Whether  the  business  in  hand 
is  constituent  or  legislative,  whether  eo  lesiastical  or  temporal, 
the  right  of  Parliament  to  discuss  and  to  dispose  is  incontestable. 

In  order  to  understand  how  England  is  governed  it  is,  therefore, 
necessary  to  give  much  attention  to  Parliament :    and  in  order 

to  appreciate  the  fullness  of  English  political  democracy  one 
must  know  something  of  the  long  historic  process  by  which  this 

1  American  Commonwealth  (3  ed.),  I,  35-36. 
112 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF   COMMONS 


",; 


all-powerful  Parliament  —  at  all  events  the  House  of  Commons 
-  has  been  made  completely  representative  of  the  people. 

Present  Composition.  —  "  When,"  wrote  Spencer  Walpole  a 
quarter  of  a  century  ago,  "  a  minister  consults  Parliament  he 
consults  the  House  of  Commons;  when  the  Queen  dissolves 
Parliament  she  dissolves  the  House  of  Commons.  A  new  Parlia- 
ment is  simply  a  new  House  of  Commons."  l  The  gathering  of 
the  "  representatives  of  the  commons  "  at  Westminster  is  in- 
deed, and  has  long  been,  without  question  the  most  important 
single  agency  of  government  in  the  kingdom.  The  chamber  is 
at  the  same  time  the  chief  repository  of  power  and  the  prime 
organ  of  the  popular  will.  It  is  in  consequence  of  its  prolonged 
and  arduous  development  that  Great  Britain  has  attained  de- 
mocracy in  national  government;  and  the  influence  of  English 
democracy,  as  actualized  in  the  House  of  Commons,  upon  the 
political  ideas  and  the  governmental  forms  of  the  outlying 
world,  both  English-speaking  and  non-English-speaking,  is  in- 
calculable. 

The  House  of  Commons  consists  to-day  of  707  members,  of 
whom  492  sit  for  English  constituencies,  36  for  Welsh,  74  for 
Scottish,  and  105  for  Irish.  Fifteen  of  the  members  are  chosen, 
under  somewhat  special  arrangements,  to  represent  the  prin- 
cipal universities.  The  remaining  692  are  elected  in  county  or 
borough  constituencies  —  372  in  the  former  and  320  in  the  latter 
—  under  a  suffrage  law  which  falls  not  far  short  of  being  the 
most  democratic  in  the  world.  The  regulations  governing  the 
qualifications  for  election  are  simple  and  liberal.  There  was 
once  a  residence  qualification.  But  in  the  eighteenth  century 
it  was  replaced  by  a  property  qualification,  which,  however,  in 
1858  was  in  its  turn  swept  away.2  Oaths  of  allegiance  and  oaths 
imposing  religious  tests  formerly  debarred  many  persons  from 
candidacy.  But  all  that  is  now  required  of  a  member  is  a  very 
simple  oath  or  affirmation  of  allegiance,  in  a  form  compatible 
with  any  shade  of  religious  belief  or  unbelief.  Any  British  sub- 
ject who  is  of  age  is  qualified  for  election  by  any  constituency  to 
which  he  [or  she]  chooses  to  offer  himself  [or  herself]  as  a  candi- 
date, unless  he  [or  she]  belongs  to  one  of  a  few  small  groups  — 
chiefly    peers    (except    Irish)  ;    clergy    of  the  Roman   Catholic 

1  The  Electorate  and  the  Legislature  (London,  1892),  48. 

2  The  rule  requiring  county  members  to  be  residents  of  the  counties  they  repre- 
sented was  formally  abolished  in  1774.  From  17 10  to  1858  the  property  qualifica- 
tion required  of  county  members  was  £600  a  year,  in  possession  or  expectancy, 
derived  from  the  ownership  of  land;  the  qualification  of  borough  members  was 
£300. 

1 


ii4  GOVERNMENTS  01    I  UROPE 

Church,  the  Church  of  England,  and  the  Church  of  Scotland; 
holders  of  offices  under  the  crown  created  since  the  adoption  of 
the  Act  of  Security1  In  1705  (except  ministerial  posts);  bank- 
rupts; lunatics;  government  contractors;  persons  convicted  of 
treason,  felony,  or  corrupt  practices. 

Women  first  became  eligible  to  sit  in  the  House  of  Commons 
as  a  result  of  legislation  supplementary  to  the  Representation  of 
the  People  Act  of  February  6,  1918,  described  below.-  No  sooner 
was  this  measure,  which  enfranchised  six  million  women,  on  tin- 
statute  book  than  the  question  arose  whether  its  effect  was  to 
make  women  eligible  for  election.  The  law  officers  of  the  crown 
took  a  negative  view.  Prospective  women  candidates,  however, 
appeared ;  the  Labor  party  pronounced  in  favor  of  female  eligi- 
bility; and  the  House  of  Commons,  by  a  vote  of  274  to  25, 
declared  desirable  the  immediate  passage  of  a  bill  on  the  subject. 
Opposition  was  half-hearted,  and  such  serious  discussion  as  took 
place  centered  around  the  question  of  amending  the  bill  so  as 
to  admit  women  to  various  professions  hitherto  closed  against 
them.  In  the  House  of  Lords  it  was  suggested  that  the  measure 
should  be  amended  to  enable  peeresses  in  their  own  right  to  sit 
and  vote  in  the  second  chamber ;  but  the  view  prevailed  that 
this  subject  should  be  left  for  separate  legislation,  and  in  Novem- 
ber, 1918,  the  Qualification  of  Women  Act  as  it  came  from  the 
House  of  Commons  was  carried  through  its  final  stages.  At 
the  elections  of  the  following  month,  one  woman  candidate  was 
successful,  although,  being  a  Sinn  Feiner,  she  did  not  take  her 
seat.3  The  first  woman  who  actually  served  as  a  member  of 
Parliament  was  Lady  Astor,  the  American-born  wife  of  Vis- 
count Astor.  After  a  spirited  campaign,  she,  as  a  Unionist 
candidate,  defeated  her  Liberal  and  Labor  rivals  in  a  by- 
election  on  November  15,  191 9.  It  is  to  be  observed  that 
whereas  qualified  women  may  vote  at  the  age  of  thirty  and 
upwards,  the  act  of  19 18  fixes  no  age  limit  for  election  to  the 
chamber. 

A  relic  of  the  days  when  the  local  gentry  had  to  be  compelled 
to  serve  in  Parliament  is  the  curious  rule  which  forbids  a  member 
to  resign  his  seat.  A  member  may  be  expelled ;  but  the  only 
way  in  which  he  can  retire  from  the  House  voluntarily  before  a 
general  election  is  to  accept  some  public  office  whose  occupant, 

^his  measure  attempted  the  i  e  which  was  carried  out  in  the  Succes- 

sion to  the  Crown  Act  — commonly  known  as  the  Place  Act  — of  1707.  See  p. 
97,  note  3. 

•pp.  1 29-1.54. 

3  See  p.  320. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF   COMMONS        115 

under  the  Place  Act  of  1707,1  is  ipso  facto  disqualified.  The 
office  usually  sought  for  this  purpose  is  that  of  steward  or  bailiff 
of  His  Majesty's  three  Chiltern  Hundreds  of  Stoke,  Desborough, 
and  Burnham,  in  the  county  of  Bucks.  Centuries  ago,  this 
officer  was  appointed  by  the  crown  to  look  after  certain  forests 
frequented  by  brigands.  The  brigands  are  long  since  dead,  and 
the  forests  themselves  have  been  converted  into  parks  and 
pasture  lands,  but  the  stewardship  remains.  The  member  who 
wishes  to  give  up  his  seat  applies  for  this,  or  for  some  other  old 
office  with  nominal  duties  and  emoluments,  receives  it  and  thereby 
disqualifies  himself,  and  then  resigns  it.  On  a  number  of  oc- 
casions the  stewardship  of  the  Chiltern  Hundreds  has  been 
granted  twice,  and  resigned  as  often,  on  the  same  day.2 

Problem  of  Electoral  Reform  in  the  Early  Nineteenth  Century. 
—  Despite  her  parliamentary  institutions,  her  traditional  prin- 
ciples of  local  self-government,  and  her  historic  guarantees  of 
individual  liberty,  England  at  the  opening  of  the  nineteenth 
century  was  in  no  true  sense  a  democratic  country.  Not  only 
was  society  organized  upon  an  essentially  aristocratic  basis,  but 
government  likewise  was  controlled  by,  and  largely  in  the  in- 
terest of,  the  few  of  higher  station.  One  branch  of  Parliament 
was  composed  entirely  of  clerical  and  hereditary  members ; 
the  other,  of  members  elected  under  franchise  arrangements 
which  were  illiberal,  or  appointed  outright  by  closed  corporations 
or  by  individual  magnates.  Not  only  the  men  who  made  the 
laws,  but  the  officers  who  executed  them,  and  the  judges  in  whose 
tribunals  they  were  interpreted  and  applied,  were  selected  in 
accordance  with  procedure  in  which  the  mass  of  the  people  had 
no  part.  The  agencies  of  local  government,  whether  in  county 
or  in  borough,  were  as  a  rule  oligarchical,  and  privilege  and  class 
distinction  pervaded  the  whole  of  the  political  system.  The 
ordinary  man  was  called  upon  to  obey  laws  and  to  pay  taxes 
voted  without  his  assent,  to  submit  to  industrial,  social,  and 
ecclesiastical  regulations  whose  making,  repeal,  and  amendment 
he  had  no  effective  means  of  influencing  —  in  short,  to  support 
a  government  which  was  beyond  his  power  to  control. 

The  problem  of  parliamentary  reform  was  threefold.  The 
first  question  was  that  of  the  suffrage.  Originally  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  counties  were  chosen  in  the  county  court  by  all 
persons  who  were  entitled  to  attend  and  to  take  part  in  the 

1  See  p.  97. 

2  Report  from  the  Select  Committee  on  House  of  Commons  {Vacating  of  Seats), 
1894. 


1 1<>  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

proceedings  of  that  body.  In  1429,  during  the  reign  of  Henry 
\l,  an  act  was  passed,  ostensibly  to  prevent  riotous  and  dis- 
orderly elections,  which  stipulated  thai  county  electors  should 
thereafter  include  only  such  male  residents  of  the  county  as 

possessed  "  free  land  or  tenement  "  which  would  rent  for  as 
much  as  forty  shillings  a  year  above  all  1  harges.1     Leaseholders, 

copyholders,  small  freeholders,  and  all  nondandholders  were 
denied  the  suffrage  altogether.  Kvcn  in  the  fifteenth  and  six- 
teenth centuries  the  number  of  forty-shilling  freeholders  was 
small.  With  the  concentration  of  land  in  fewer  hands,  resulting 
from  the  agrarian  revolution  of  the  eighteenth  and  early  nine- 
teenth centuries,'-  it  bore  a  steadily  decreasing  ratio  to  tin- 
aggregate  county  population,  and  by  1832  the  county  electors 
included,  as  a  rule,  only  a  handful  of  large  landed  proprietors. 
In  the  boroughs  the  franchise  arrangements  existing  at  the  date 
mentioned  were  complicated  and  diverse  beyond  possibility  of 
general  characterization.  Many  of  the  boroughs  had  been 
given  parliamentary  representation  by  the  most  arbitrary  and 
haphazard  methods,  and  at  no  time  before  1830  was  general 
legislation  enacted  to  regulate  th,e  conditions  of  voting  within 
them.  There  were  "scot  and  lot"  boroughs,  "  potwalloper  " 
boroughs,  burgage  boroughs,  corporation  or  "  close  "  boroughs, 
and  "  freemen  "  boroughs,  to  mention  only  the  more  important 
of  the  types  that  can  be  distinguished.  In  some  of  these  the 
franchise  was,  at  least  in  theory,  reasonably  democratic ;  but 
in  most  of  them  it  was  restricted  by  custom  or  local  regulation 
to  petty  groups  of  property-holders  or  taxpayers,  to  members  of 
the  municipal  corporations,  or  even  to  members  of  a  favored 
gild.  With  few  exceptions,  the  borough  franchise  was  illogical, 
narrow,  and  non-expansive. 

Another  problem  was  that  arising  from  the  astounding  prev- 
alence of  illegitimate  political  influence  and  of  sheer  corruption. 
Borough  members  were  frequently  not  representatives  of  the 
people  at  all,  but  nominees  of  peers,  of  influential  commoners, 
or  of  the  government.  It  has  been  estimated  that  of  the  472 
borough  members,  not  more  than  137  can  be  regarded  as  having 
been  in  any  proper  sense  elected.  The  remainder  sat  for  "  rotten" 
boroughs,  or  for  "  pocket  "  boroughs  whose  populations  were  so 
meager  or  so  docile  that  the  borough  might,  as  it  were,  be  carried 
about  in  a  magnate's  pocket.     In  the  whole  of  Cornwall  there 

1  Equivalent  in  present  values  t<>  E30  or  L'40,  i.r..  Si 50  or  $200. 

2  See  F.  A.  Ogg,  Economu  Development  of  Modern  Europe  (New  York.  1917), 
Chap,  vi 


PARLIAMENT:  THE   HOUSE   OF   COMMONS        117 

were  only  one  thousand  voters.  Of  the  forty- two  seats  to  which 
that  section  of  the  country  was  entitled,  twenty  were  controlled 
by  seven  peers,  twenty-one  were  similarly  controlled  by  eleven 
commoners,  and  only  one  was  tilled  by  free  election.  In  1780 
the  Duke  of  Richmond  asserted  that  a  clear  majority  of  the 
House  of  Commons  was  returned  by  not  more  than  six  thousand 
persons.  Bribery  and  other  forms  of  corruption  were  so  com- 
mon that  only  the  most  shameless  instances  attracted  attention. 
Not  merely  votes,  but  seats,  were  bought  and  sold  openly,  and 
it  was  generally  understood  that  £5000  to  £7000  was  the 
amount  which  a  political  aspirant  might  expect  to  have  to  pay 
a  borough-monger  for  bringing  about  his  election.  Seats  were 
advertised  for  sale  in  the  public  prints,  and  even  for  hire  for  a 
term  of  years.1 

The  Problem  of  Redistribution  of  Seats.  —  The  third  ques- 
tion was  that  of  a  redistribution  of  seats.     The  constitution  of  the 
United  States  requires  a  reapportionment  of  seats  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  after  each  decennial  census,  and  in  France 
there  is  such  a  redistribution  every  five  years.     The  object  is, 
obviously,  to  preserve  substantial  equality  among  the  electoral 
constituencies,  so  that  a  vote  will  count  for  as  much  in  one  place 
as  in  another.     Curiously,  there  has  never  been  in  England,  in 
either  law  or  custom,  a  requirement  of  this  kind.     Reapportion- 
ments have  been  few  and  irregular,  and  most  of  the  time  the 
constituencies  represented  at  Westminster  have  been  very  un- 
equal in   size.     Save   that,   in   1707,   forty-five  members  were 
added  to  represent  Scotland  and,  in  1801,  one  hundred  to  sit  for 
Ireland,  the  constituencies  represented  in  the  Commons  continued 
almost  unchanged  from  the  reign  of  Charles  II  to  the  reform  of 
1832.     Changes   of  population   in   this   extended   period   were, 
however,  enormous.     In  1689  the  population  of  England  and 
Wales  was  not  in  excess  of  5,500,000.     The  census  of  1831  re- 
vealed in  these  countries  a  population  of  14,000,000.     In  the 
seventeenth  and  earlier  eighteenth  centuries  the  great  mass  of 
the  English  people  lived  in  the  south  and  east.     Liverpool  was 
but  an  insignificant  town,  Manchester  a  village,  and  Birming- 
ham a  sand-hill.     But  the  industrial  revolution  had  the  effect 
of  bringing  coal,  iron,  and  water-power  into  enormous  demand, 
and  after  1775  the  industrial  center,  and  likewise  the  popula- 

1  For  an  interesting  sketch  of  "unreformed  electioneering"  see  C.  Seymour  and 
D.  P.  Frary,  How  the  World  Votes  (Springfield,  1918),  I,  91-112.     "This  house, 
said  Pitt  on  the  floor  of  the  Commons  in  1783,"  is  not  the  representative  of  the  people 
of  Great  Britain ;   it  is  the  representative  of  nominal  boroughs,  of  ruined  and  ex- 
terminated towns,  of  noble  families,  of  wealthy  individuals,  of  foreign  potentates. 


i,S  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

tion  center,  of  the  country  Shifted  rapidly  toward  the  north. 
In  the  hitherto  almost  uninhabited  valleys  of  Lancashire  and 
hire  sprang  up  a  multitude  of  factory  town-  and  cities. 
In  Parliament  these  fasl  growing  populations  were  cither  glar 
ingly  under-represented  or  not  represented  at  all.  In  1831  the 
ten  iouthernmost  counties  of  England  contained  a  population 
of  ;,joo,ooo  and  returned  to  Parliament  235  members.1  At 
the  same  time  the  six  northernmost  counties  contained  a  popu- 
lation of  ,}.5Q.pooo,  but  returned  only  08  members.  Cornwall, 
with  ^00.000  inhabitants,  had  42  representatives;  Lancashire, 
with  r. ^0,000,  had  14.  Among  towns,  Birmingham  and  .Man- 
chester, each  with  upwards  of  100,000  people,  and  bred-  and 
Sheffield,  each  with  50,000.  had  no  representation  whatever.  On 
the  other  hand,  boroughs  were  entitled  to  representation  which 
contained  ridiculously  small  populations,  or  even  no  settled 
population  at  all.  Gatto,  in  Surrey,  was  a  park;  Old  Sarum, 
in  Wiltshire,  was  a  deserted  hill;  the  remains  of  what  once  was 
Dunwich  were  under  the  waves  of  the  North  Sea.  Bosseney, 
in  Cornwall,  was  a  hamlet  of  three  cottages,  eight  of  whose  nine 
electors  belonged  to  a  single  family.  But  Bosseney  sent  two 
members  to  the  House  of  Commons.2 

The  Reform  Act  of  1832.  —  Demand  for  a  reconstruction  of 
the  electoral  system  antedated  the  nineteenth  century.  As 
early  as  1690,  John  Locke  denounced  the  absurdities  of  the 
prevailing  arrangements,3  although  they  were  then  rather  less 
glaring  than  they  came  to  be  by  1832  ;  and  during  the  second 
half  of  the  eighteenth  century  a  number  of  interesting  reform 
proposals  —  notably  that  of  the  elder  Pitt  in  1766,  that  of  Wilkes 
in  1776,  and  that  of  the  younger  Pitt  in  1785  —  were  widely 
though  fruitlessly  discussed.  In  1780  a  group  of  public-spirited 
men  established  a  Society  for  Constitutional  Information  which 
during  the  following  decade  carried  on   active  propaganda  in 

1  That  is  to  say,  the  quota  of  members  mentioned  was  returned  by  the  counties 
as  such,  together  with  the  borough-  contained  geographically  within  them. 

-  'the  monumental  1 1  use  of  Commons  prior  to  1832  is  E.  Porritt, 

I  unformed   House   of  Commons:     Parliamentary  Representation   before  1832, 

2  vols.  (2d  cd.,  Cambridge,  1909).     On  the  prevalence  of  corruption  see  May  and 

Holland,  Constitutional   History  of  England,  I,  224-238,  254-262,  and   Seymour 

and  Frary,  How  the  World  Votes,  I,  Chaps,  i 

>  Treatises  of  Government,  ed.  by  II.  Morley  (2d  ed.,  London,  1887),  274-275, 
''To  what  gross  absurdities,'1  Jaid  Locke,  "the  following  of  custom,  when  reason  has 
left  it,  may  lead,  we  may  be  satisfied  when  we  see  the  bare  name  of  a  town  of  which 
there  remains  not  so  much  as  the  ruins,  where  scarce  so  much  housing  as  a  sheep- 
more  inhabitants  than  a  shepherd  is  to  be  found,  sends  as  many  representa- 
tives to  the  grand  assembly  of  lawmakers  as  a  whole  county  numerous  in  people 
and  powerful  in  riches." 


PARLIAMENT:  THE   HOUSE  OF   COMMONS         119 

behalf  of  parliamentary  regeneration,  and  at  a  meeting  under 
the  auspices  of  this  organization  and  presided  over  by  Fox  a 
program  was  drawn  up  calling  for  innovations  no  less  sweeping 
than  the  establishment  of  manhood  suffrage,  the  creation  of 
equal  electoral  districts,  the  payment  of  members,  the  abolition 
of  property  qualifications  for  members,  and  adoption  of  the 
secret  ballot.1  The  revolution  in  France  and  the  contest  with 
Napoleon  slowed  up  the  reform  movement,  but  after  181 5  agita- 
tion was  renewed.  The  economic  and  social  ills  of  the  nation 
in  the  decade  following  the  restoration  of  peace  were  many,  and 
the  idea  took  wide  hold  that  only  through  a  reconstruction  of 
Parliament  could  adequate  measures  of  amelioration  be  secured. 
The  Tory  governments  of  the  period  were  disposed  to  resist  the 
popular  demand,  or,  at  the  most,  to  concede  changes  that  would 
not  affect  the  aristocratic  character  of  the  parliamentary  cham- 
bers. But  the  reformers  refused  to  be  diverted  from  their  funda- 
mental object,  and  in  the  end  the  forces  of  tradition  and  con- 
servatism were  obliged  to  give  way.2 

The  first  notable  triumph  was  the  Reform  Act  of  1832.  The 
changes  wrought  by  this  memorable  piece  of  legislation  were 
two-fold,  the  first  relating  to  the  distribution  of  seats  in  Parlia- 
ment, the  second  to  the  extension  of  the  suffrage.  The  number 
of  Scottish  members  was  increased  from  45  to  54 ;  that  of  Irish, 
from  100  to  105  ;  that  of  English  and  Welsh  was  reduced  from 
513  to  499.  There  was  no  general  reapportionment  of  seats, 
no  effort  to  bring  the  parliamentary  constituencies  into  precise 
and  uniform  relation  to  the  census  returns.  Yet  the  grossest 
inequalities  were  remedied.  Fifty-six  boroughs,  of  populations 
under  2000,  were  deprived  of  representation ; 3  thirty-one,  of 
populations  between  2000  and  4000,  were  reduced  from  two 
members  to  one ;  and  one  was  reduced  from  four  members  to 
two.  The  143  seats  thus  made  available  were  redistributed, 
and  the  aggregate  number  (658)  continued  as  before.     Twenty- 

1  It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  every  one  of  these  demands  found  a  place 
half  a  century  later  among  the  "six  points"  of  the  Chartists.  See  p.  120.  A  bill 
embodying  the  proposed  reforms  was  introduced  by  the  Duke  of  Richmond  in  1780, 
but  met  with  small  favor.  A  second  society  —  The  Friends  of  the  People  —  was 
formed  in  1792  to  promote  the  cause. 

2  The  reform  movement  up  to  1832  is  sketched  in  May  and  Holland,  Constitu- 
tional Historv  of  England,  I,  264-280.  The  best  systematic  account  is  G.  S.  Veitch, 
The  Genesis  of  Parliamentary  Reform  (London,  1914)-  See  also  G.  L.  Dickinson, 
Development  of  Parliament  during  the  Nineteenth  Century  (London,  1895),  Chap.  1; 
J.  H.  Rose,  Rise  and  Growth  of  Democracy  in  Great  Britain  (London,  1897),  Chap.  1; 
C.  B.  R.  Kent,  The  English  Radicals  (London,  1899),  Chaps,  i-ii;  and  W.  P.  Hall, 
British  Radicalism,  1791-1707  (New  York,  1912). 

3  Of  the  fifty-six  all  save  one  had  returned  two  members. 


120  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

two  large  boroughs  hitherto  unrepresented  were  given  two 
members  each;  twenty-one  others  were  given  one  additional 
member  each  ;  and  sixty-five  seats  wen-  allotted  to  twenty  seven 
of  the  English  counties,  the  remaining  thirteen  being  given  to 
Scotland  and  Ireland.  The  redistribution  had  the  effect  of 
increasing  greatly  the  political  power  of  the  northern  and  north- 
central  portions  of  the  country. 

The  alterations  made  in  the  suffrage  were  numerous  and 
important.  In  the  counties  the  forty-shilling  freehold  franchise 
was  retained  ;  but  the  voting  privilege  was  extended  to  all  lease 
holders  and  i  opyholders  of  land  renting  for  as  much  as  do  a 
year,  and  to  tenants-at-will  holding  an  estate  worth  £50  a  year. 
In  the  boroughs  the  right  to  vote  was  conferred  upon  all  "  oc- 
cupiers "  of  nouses  worth  L'10  a  year.  The  total  number  ot 
persons  enfranchised  was  approximately  455,000.  By  basing  the 
suffrage  exclusively  upon  the  ownership  or  occupancy  of  prop- 
erty of  considerable  value,  the  reform  fell  short  of  admitting  to 
political  power  the  great  mass  of  factory  employees  and  of  agri- 
cultural laborers,  and  for  this  reason  the  bill  was  denounced  by 
the  more  liberal  elements.  If,  however,  the  privilege  of  voting 
had  not  been  extended  to  the  masses,  it  had  been  brought  ap- 
preciably nearer  them;  and  —  what  was  almost  equally  im- 
portant —  it  had  been  made  substantially  uniform,  for  the  first 
time,  throughout  the  realm.1 

The  Representation  of  the  People  Act  of  1867. —  The  ait 
of  1832  contained  none  of  the  elements  of  finality.  Its  authors 
were,  in  general,  content ;  but  with  the  lapse  of  time  it  became 
manifest  that  the  nation  was  not.  Political  power  was  still 
confined  to  the  magnates  of  the  kingdom,  the  townsfolk  who 
were  able  to  pav  a  £10  annual  rental,  and  the  well-to-do  copy- 
holders and  leaseholders  of  rural  districts.  Whigs  and  Tories 
of  influence  alike  insisted  that  farther  change  could  not  be  con- 
templated, but  the  radicals  and  the  laboring  masses  insisted  no 
less  resolutely  that  the  reformation  which  had  been  begun  should 
be  carried  to  its  logical  conclusion.  The  demands  chiefly  em- 
phasized were  gathered  up  in  the  "  six  points  "  of  the  People's 
Charter,  promulgated  in  definitive  form  May  8,  1838.  The  six 
points  were:  (1)  universal  suffrage  for  males  over  twenty-one 
years  of  age,  (2)  equal  electoral  districts,  (3)  secret  ballot. 
(4)  annual  sessions  of  Parliament.  (5)  abolition  of  property 
qualifications  for  members  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  (6) 

1  The  more  important  parts  of  the  text  of  the  Reform  Act  of  1832  are  printed  in 
Robertson,  Statutes,  Cases,  and  Documents,  197-212. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF   COMMONS        121 

payment  of  members.  The  barest  enumeration  of  these  demands 
is  sufficient  to  reveal  the  political  backwardness  of  the  England 
of  three  quarters  of  a  century  ago.  Not  only  was  the  suffrage 
still  severely  restricted  and  the  basis  of  representation  anti- 
quated and  unfair ;  voting  was  oral  and  public,  and  only  men 
who  were  qualified  by  the  possession  of  property  were  eligible 
for  election.1 

After  a  decade  of  spectacular  propaganda  Chartism  collapsed, 
without  having  attained  tangible  results.  None  the  less,  the 
day  was  not  long  postponed  when  the  forces  of  reform,  sobered 
and  led  by  practical  statesmen,  were  able  to  realize  one  after 
another  of  their  fundamental  purposes.  In  1858  the  second 
Derby  government  agreed  to  the  abolition  of  property  qualifica- 
tions for  members,  and  after  i860  projects  for  franchise  extension 
were  considered  with  new  seriousness.  In  1867  a  third  Derby 
government,  whose  guiding  spirit  was  Disraeli,  carried  a  bill 
providing  for  a  more  comprehensive  electoral  reform  than 
anybody  except  the  ultra-radicals  had  expected,  or  perhaps 
desired.  This  Representation  of  the  People  Act  modified, 
indeed,  but  slightly  the  distribution  of  parliamentary  seats. 
The  total  number  of  seats  remained  unchanged,  as  did  Ireland's 
quota  of  105  ;  Scotland's  apportionment  was  increased  from  54 
to  60,  while  that  of  England  and  Wales  was  decreased  from 
499  to  493.  Eleven  boroughs  lost  the  right  of  representation 
and  thirty-five  others  were  reduced  from  two  members  to  one, 
the  fifty-two  seats  thus  vacated  being  utilized  to  enfranchise 
twelve  new  borough  and  three  university  constituencies  and  to 
increase  the  representation  of  a  number  of  the  more  populous 
towns  and  counties. 

The  most  important  provisions  of  the  Act  were,  however, 
those  relating  to  the  franchise.  In  England  and  Wales  the  county 
franchise  was  given  to  men  whose  freehold  was  of  the  value  of 
forty  shillings  a  year,  to  copyholders  and  leaseholders  of  the 
annual  value  of  £5,  and  to  householders  whose  rent  amounted 
to  not  less  than  £12  a  year.  The  twelve-pound  occupation 
franchise  was  new,  and  the  qualification  for  copyholders  and 
leaseholders  was  reduced  from  £10  to  £5  ;  otherwise  the  county 
franchise  was  unchanged.     The  borough  franchise  was  modified 

1  Rose,  Rise  and  Growth  of  Democracy,  Chaps,  vi-viii ;  Kent,  The  English  Radicals, 
Chap,  iii;  R.  G.  Gammage,  History  of  the  Chartist  Movement,  1837-1854  (New- 
castle-on-Tyne,  1894) ;  M.  Hovell,  The  Chartist  Movement  (New  York,  1918) ; 
F.  F.  Rosenblatt,  The  Chartist  Movement  in  its  Social  and  Economic  Aspects  (New 
York,  1916) ;  H.  U.  Faulkner,  Chartism  and  the  Churches  (New  York,  1916) ; 
P.  W.  Slosson,  The  Decline  of  the  Chartist  Movement  (New  York,  19 16). 


GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

profoundly.  Heretofore  persons  were  qualified  to  vote  as 
iseholders  only  in  the  event  thai  their  house  was  worth  as 
much  as  Eioa  year.  Now  the  right  was  conferred  upon  every 
man  who  occupied,  as  owner  or  as  tenant,  for  twelve  months,  a 
dwelling-house,  or  any  portion  thereof  utilized  as  a  separate 
dwelling,  without  regard  to  its  value.  Another  newly  estab- 
lished franchise  admitted  to  the  voting  privilege  all  lodgers 
occupying  for  as  much  as  a  year  rooms  of  the  clear  value,  unfur- 
nished, of  L'10  a  year.  The  effect  of  these  provisions  was  to 
enfranchise  the  urban  working  population,  even  as  the  act  of 
j  had  enfranchised  principally  the  urban  middle  class.  As 
originally  planned,  Disraeli's  measure  would  have  enlarged  the 
electorate  by  not  more  than  ioo.ooo;  as  amended  and  carried. 
it  practically  doubled  the  voting  population,  raising  it  from 
[,370,793  immediately  prior  to  1867  to  2,526,423  in  1871.1  The 
act  of  1832  enfranchised  the  middle  classes ;  that  of  1867  threw 
political  power  in  no  small  degree  into  the  hands  of  the  mas  1 
Only  two  large  groups  of  people  now  remained  outside  the 
pale  of  political  influence,  i.e.,  the  agricultural  laborers  and  the 

miners. 

The  Representation  of  the  People  Act  of  1884  and  the  Redis- 
tribution Act  of  1885.  —  That  the  qualifications  for  voting  in 
one  class  of  constituencies  should  be  conspicuously  more  liberal 
than  in  another  class  was  an  anomaly,  and  in  a  period  when 
anomalies  were  fast  being  eliminated  from  the  English  electoral 

tern  remedy  could  not  be  long  delayed.  On  February  5, 
1884,  the  second  Gladstone  ministry  redeemed  a  campaign 
pledge  by  introducing  a  bill  extending  to  the  counties  the  same 
electoral  regulations  that  had  been  established  in  1867  in  the 
towns.  The  measure  passed  the  Commons,  but  was  rejected  by 
the  Lords  because  it  was  not  accompanied  by  a  bill  for  the  re- 
distribution of  seats.  Agreement  between  the  two  houses 
averted  a  deadlock,  and  before  the  end  of  the  year  the  Lords 
accepted  the  Government's  bill,  on  the  understanding  that  it- 
enactment  was  to  be  followed  immediately  by  the  introduction 
of  a  redistribution  measure. 

The  Representation  of  the  People  Act  of  1884  is  in  form  dis- 
jointed and  difficult  to  understand,  but  its  effect  is  easy  to  state. 
In  the  first  place,  it  established  a  uniform  household  franchise 

1  It  is  to  he  observe!  thai  these  figures  are  for  the  United  Kingdom  :is  a  whole, 
and  therefore  embrace  the  results  not  only  of  the  ai  I  of  1867  applying  to  England 
and  Wales,  but  of  the  two  arts  of  t868  introducing  similar,  although  not  identical, 

inges  in  Scotland  and  Ireland. 


PARLIAMENT:   THE   HOUSE  OF   COMMONS        123 

and  a  uniform  lodger  franchise  in  all  counties  and  boroughs 
of  the  United  Kingdom.  The  occupation  of  any  land  or  tene- 
ment of  a  clear  annual  value  of  £10  was  made  a  qualifica- 
tion in  boroughs  and  counties  alike ;  and  persons  occupying 
a  house  by  virtue  of  office  or  employment  were  to  be  deemed 
"occupiers"  for  the  purpose  of  the  act.  The  measure  doubled 
the  county  electorate,  and  increased  the  total  electorate  by 
some  2,000,000,  or  approximately  forty  per  cent.  Its  most 
important  effect  was  to  enfranchise  the  workingman  in  the 
country,  as  the  act  of  1867  had  enfranchised  the  workingman 
in  the  town. 

In  1885,  the  two  great  parties  cooperating,  the  Redistribution 
of  Seats  Act  which  had  been  promised  was  passed.  For  the 
first  time  in  English  history  attempt  was  made  to  apportion 
representation  in  the  House  of  Commons  in  something  like 
strict  accordance  with  population  densities.  The  total  number 
of  members  was  increased  from  658 *  to  670,  and  of  the  number 
103  were  allotted  to  Ireland,  72  to  Scotland,  and  495  to  England 
and  Wales.  The  method  by  which  former  redistributions  had 
been  accomplished,  i.e.,  transferring  seats  more  or  less  arbi- 
trarily from  flagrantly  over-represented  boroughs  to  more  pop- 
ulous boroughs  and  counties,  was  replaced  by  a  plan  based 
upon  the  principle  of  equal  electoral  constituencies,  each  return- 
ing one  member.  This  principle  was  not  carried  out  with  mathe- 
matical exactness;  indeed,  considerable  inequalities  survived 
the  rearrangement.  But  the  situation  was  made  vastly  better 
than  before. 

In  theory  a  constituency  was  made  to  comprise  50,000  people. 
Boroughs  containing  fewer  than  15,000  inhabitants  were  dis- 
franchised as  boroughs,  becoming  for  electoral  purposes  mere 
portions  of  the  counties  in  which  they  were  situated.  Boroughs 
of  between  15,000  and  50,000  inhabitants  were  allowed  to  re- 
tain, or  if  previously  unrepresented  were  given,  one  member 
each.  Those  of  between  50,000  and  165,000  were  given  two 
members,  and  those  of  more  than  165,000  three,  with  one  in 
addition  for  every  additional  50,000  people.  The  same  general 
principle  was  followed  in  the  counties.  Thus  the  city  of  Liver- 
pool, which  prior  to  1885  sent  three  members  to  Parliament, 
fell  into  nine  distinct  constituencies,  each  returning  one  member, 
and  the  great  northern  county  of  Lancashire,  which  since  1867 
had  been  divided  into  four  portions  each  returning  two  members, 

1  Strictly  652,  since  after  1867  four  boroughs,  returning  six  members,  were  dis- 
franchised. 


I24  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

was  now  split   into  twenty-three   divisions  with  one  member 
each.1 

Electoral  Questions,  1885-1918:  Manhood  Suffrage,  Plural 
Voting,  and  Redistribution.  The  measures  just  described  stood 
on  the  statute  hook  practically  without  change  until  1918. 
During  this  long  period  England  properly  regarded  her  govern- 
ment as  democratic  ;  and  it  was  so  considered  by  the  rest  of  the 
world.  Nevertheless,  even  the  House  of  Commons,  which  was 
the  most  democratic  part  of  the  national  government,  was  not 
so  broadly  representative  of  the  nation  as  it  might  have  been. 
Wherein  it  was  lacking  will  be  explained  briefly  in  this  and  the 
following  section ;  then  will  be  told  how,  in  the  midst  of  the  war,  a 
great  parliamentary  statute  was  passed  to  remedy  the  situation. 

In  the  first  place,  the  suffrage  was  defined  entirely  in  terms  of 
relation  to  property.  One  voted,  not  as  a  person  or  citizen, 
but  as  an  owner,  occupier,  or  user  of  houses,  lands,  or  other 
property.  The  voter  did  not  have  to  own  property;  and  oc- 
cupational requirements  were,  as  we  have  seen,  comparatively 
easy  to  meet.  Nevertheless  the  laws  governing  the  exercise 
of  both  the  parliamentary  and  local  suffrages  were  so  compli- 
cated that  only  lawyers  professed  to  understand  them ;  and 
their  net  effect  was  to  exclude  some  two  million  adult  males  from 
taking  part  in  the  election  of  parliamentary  members.     "  The 

1  On  the  reforms  of  the  period  1832-85  see  Cambridge  Modern  History,  X,Chap. 
xviii,  and  XI,  Chap,  xii ;  Dickinson,  Development  of  Parliament,  Chap.  II;  Rose, 
Rise  and  Growth  of  Democracy,  Chaps,  ii,  x-xiii;  Marriott,  English  Political  Insti- 
tutions, Chap.  x.  An  excellent  survey  is  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  History 
of  England,  I.  Chap,  vi,  and  III,  Chap.  i.  The  best  treatise  on  the  general  subject 
i's  C.  Seymour,  Electoral  Reform  in  England  and  Wales,  /  .  \2  1885  (New  Haven 
1015),  and  the  best  full  accounts  of  the  reform  of  1832  are  J.  R.  M.  Butler,  The 
Passing  of  the  Great  Reform  Bill  (New  York,  1914),  and  G.  M.  Trevelyan,  Earl  Grey 
and  the  Reform  Bill  (London,  1920).  Mention  may  be  made  of  H.  Cox,  History 
of  the  Reform  Bills  of  1866  end  1867  (London,  1S6S) ;  J.  S.  Mill,  Considerations  on 
Repres*  ntative  Government  (London,  1K01 ) ;  and  T.  Hare,  The  Election  of  Representa- 
tives, Parliamentary  and  Municipal  (3d  ed.,  London,  1865).  An  excellent  survey 
by  a  Swiss  scholar  is  C.  Borgeaud,  Tht  Ri  e  of  Modem  Democracy  in  Old  and  Neu 
England,  trans,  by  B.  Hill  (London,  [894),  and  a  useful  volume  is  J.  Murdock, 
.1  History  of  Constitutional  Reform  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  (Glasgow,  1885). 
The  various  phases  of  the  subject  are  covered  in  the  general  histories  of  the 
period,  notablj  S.  Walpole,  History  of  England  from  lite  Gondii. ion  of  the  C 
War  in  X815,  6  vols,  (new  ed.,  London,  1902);  W  .  \.  Molesworth,  History  of  Eng- 
land from  the  year  1  ;vol  1  0;  J  F-  Bright,  History  of  Eng 
land',  5  vols.  (London,  1875  94);  H.  Paul,  History  of  Modern  England,  5  vols. 
(London,  1904-06);  and  S.  Low  and  L.  C.  Sanders,  History  0)  England  during  the 

Reign  of  Victoria  (London,  1007).    Three  biographical  worl     1 1  special  service: 

S.  Walpole,  Life  of  Lord  John  Russell.  2  vols.  (London,  1889);  J.  Morley,  Life  of 
William  I  Glad  tone,  3  vols.  (London.  1903);  and  YV.  F.  Monypenny  and  G.  L. 
Bu<  of  Benjamin  Disraeli,  Earl  of  Bcaconsfield,  6  vols.  (New  York,  1910- 

20). 


PARLIAMENT:  THE   HOUSE  OF   COMMONS         125 

present  condition  of  the  franchise,"  wrote  Lowell  in  1909,  "is, 
indeed,  historical  rather  than  rational.  It  is  complicated,  un- 
certain, expensive  in  the  machinery  required,  and  excludes  a 
certain  number  of  people  whom  there  is  no  reason  for  excluding ; 
while  it  admits  many  people  who  ought  not  to  be  admitted  if 
any  one  is  to  be  debarred."  1  The  first  demand  of  electoral 
reformers  was,  accordingly,  for  a  law  that  would  simplify  the 
existing  system  and  at  the  same  time  make  provision  substan- 
tially for  manhood  suffrage. 

The  second  demand  was  for  the  abolition  of  plural  voting. 
The  problem  of  the  plural  vote  was  an  old  one.  Under  existing 
laws  an  elector  might  not  vote  more  than  once  in  a  single  con- 
stituency, nor  in  more  than  one  division  of  the  same  borough  ; 
but  aside  from  this  he  was  entitled  to  vote  in  every  constitu- 
ency in  which  he  possessed  a  qualification.  In  the  United 
States,  and  in  practically  all  European  countries,  a  man  has 
only  one  vote ;  and  any  arrangement  other  than  this  seems  to 
most  people  to  violate  the  principle  of  civic  equality  which  lies 
at  the  root  of  popular  government.  In  England  efforts  have 
been  many  to  bring  about  the  adoption  of  the  rule  of  "  one  man, 
one  vote,"  but  they  have  never  been  entirely  successful.  The 
number  of  plural  voters  —  some  525,000  —  was  relatively 
small.  But  when  it  is  observed  that  a  single  voter  might  cast 
during  a  parliamentary  election  as  many  as  six  or  eight  votes, 
it  will  not  be  wondered  at  that  the  number  sufficed  to  turn  the 
scale  in  many  closely  contested  constituencies.  An  overwhelming 
proportion  of  the  plural  voters  belonged  to  the  Unionist  party, 
whence  it  arose  that  the  Liberals  were  solidly  opposed  to  the 
privilege.  In  1906,  and  on  two  or  three  occasions  thereafter, 
a  Liberal  government  carried  through  the  House  of  Commons  a 
bill  abolishing  plural  voting.2  But  the  Unionist  majority  in  the 
House  of  Lords  always  blocked  the  reform. 

A  third  question  which  aroused  much  discussion  was  a  fresh 
apportionment  of  seats  in  the  House  of  Commons.  In  the 
quarter-century  following  the  act  of  1885  the  electoral  districts 
again  became  very  unequal.  In  19 12  the  most  populous  con- 
stituency (the  Romford  division  of  the  county  of  Essex)  had 
55,950  voters,  while  the  least  populous  (the  Irish  borough  of 
Kilkenny)  had  only  1690.  The  populations  of  the  hundreds  of 
county  and  borough  constituencies  throughout  the  United 
Kingdom  fell  at  all  points  between  these  extremes.  It  was  the 
Liberals  who  urged  abolition  of  plural  voting  —  because  plural 

1  Government  of  England,  I,  213.  2  See  pp.  128,  148. 


[26  c.<)\  l  k\Mi;\  rs  OF   EUROPE 

voting  benefited  the  Unionists.    On  the  other  band,  it  was  in 
the  main  the  Unionists  who  urged  a  redistribution  oi  seats 
because  the  existing  distribution  worked  advantageously  for  the 
Liberals.    A  Unionist  redistribution  measure  in   1905  did  not 
reach  debate;  and  the  several  Liberal  electoral  proposals  of  the 

succeeding  decade  made  no  provision,  beyond  somewhat  indef- 
inite promises,  for  the  reform. 

A  special  difficulty  inherent  in  this  subject  was  the  situation 
of  Ireland.  On  account  of  the  decline  of  Ireland's  population 
during  the  nineteenth  century,  that  portion  of  the  United  King- 
dom had  come  to  be  heavily  over-represented  at  Westminster, 
The  average  Irish  commoner  sat  for  but  44,147  people,  while 
the  average  English  member  represented  66,971.  If  a  new 
distribution  were  to  be  made  in  strict  proportion  to  numbers 
Ireland  would  lose  30  seats  and  Wales  three,  while  Scotland 
would  gain  one  and  England  about  30.  It  was  contended  by 
the  Irish  people,  however,  that  the  Act  of  Union  of  1800,  which 
guaranteed  Ireland  as  many  as  one  hundred  parliamentary 
seats,  was  in  the  nature  of  a  treaty,  whose  terms  could  not  be 
violated  save  by  the  consent  of  both  contracting  parties;  and 
so  long  as  the  Irish  were  not  allowed  a  separate  parliament  they 
could  be  depended  upon  to  resist,  as  they  did  resist  in  1905, 
any  proposal  to  reduce  their  voting  strength  in  the  parliament 
of  the  United  Kingdom.1 

Electoral  Questions,  1885-1918:  Woman  Suffrage.  —  An 
electoral  question  which  thrust  itself  into  the  forefront  of  public 
discussion  soon  after  the  opening  of  the  present  century  is  woman 
suffrage.  The  history  of  this  issue  runs  back  hardly  more 
than  fifty  years.  The  first  notable  attempt  to  induce  Parlia- 
ment to  bestow  the  suffrage  on  properly  qualified  women  was 
that  of  John  Stuart  Mill,  who  in  1867  vainly  urged  the  adoption 
of  a  woman  suffrage  amendment  to  Disraeli's  Representation 
of  the  People  Act.  A  national  society  to  promote  the  cause 
was  organized  in  the  same  year;  and  in  1869  an  act  of  Parlia- 
ment conferred  the  suffrage  in  municipal  elections  upon  all 
female  taxpayers  of  England,  WTales,  and  Scotland.  From  time 
to  time  for  twenty  years  thereafter  bills  on  the  subject  appeared 
in  the  House  of  Commons,  but  with  little  chance  of  success.  A 
new  chapter  in  the  history  of  the  movement  was  opened  in  1903 
by  the  organization  of  the  Woman's  Social  and  Political  Union, 
under  whose  auspices  an  earnest  and  spectacular  campaign  was 

1  .Much  general  information  ented  in  J.  King  and  F,  W.  Raffety,  Our 

Electoral '.System;  the  Demand  jo,-  Reform  (London,  1912). 


PARLIAMENT:  THE   HOUSE  OF   COMMONS        127 

carried  on  in  the  next  decade.  The  first  notable  victory  came 
in  1907,  when  considerable  numbers  of  women  not  only  were 
given  the  suffrage  in  local  elections,  but  were  made  eligible  to 
borough  and  county  councils  (except  the  London  County  Council) 
and  to  boards  of  guardians  for  the  relief  of  the  poor.  Thereafter 
the  campaign  was  directed  specifically  toward  securing  the  parlia- 
mentary franchise.  The  first  great  object  was  to  persuade  or 
compel  a  ruling  ministry,  i.e.,  "  the  Government,"  to  introduce 
a  suffrage  measure,  since  bills  presented  by  private  members 
are  unlikely  to  be  passed  if  they  deal  with  controversial  matters. 

This  object  was  not  attained  until  1918.  But  meanwhile  the 
cause  was  advertised,  organized,  and  broadened  until  it  gave 
promise  of  bringing  the  country  to  a  genuine  crisis.  How  the 
program  grew  is  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  whereas  originally 
the  demand  was  merely  for  the  removal  of  the  disqualification  of 
women  as  women  —  in  other  words,  for  the  enfranchisement  of 
women  upon  the  same  terms,  in  respect  to  age,  residence,  and  in- 
dependent ownership  or  occupancy  of  property,  as  men  —  from 
about  1909  it  was  urged  that  substantially  all  adult  women  in 
the  United  Kingdom  should  be  made  voters.  The  first  plan 
would  have  meant  the  enfranchisement  of  about  two  million 
women  ;  the  second,  of  ten  million.  A  "  conciliation  "  scheme, 
incorporated  in  a  great  electoral  bill  in  19 10,  proposed  as  a  first 
step  to  bestow  the  franchise  in  parliamentary  elections  upon  such 
women  as  were  already  permitted  to  vote  in  local  elections  — 
approximately  one  and  one  fourth  millions.  Proposals  of  every 
sort  were  blocked,  however,  during  the  pre-war  years  of  the 
ministry  of  Mr.  Asquith  by  the  inflexible  opposition  of  the 
premier  and  several  of  his  colleagues,  and  by  the  consequent 
impossibility  of  getting  before  Parliament  a  government  measure 
on  the  subject.1 

Antecedents  of  the  Representation  of  the  People  Act  of 
19 1 8.  —  The  Parliament  Act  of  191 1 ,2  which  established  exclusive 
control  of  the  House  of  Commons  over  public  finance  and  as- 
sured its  increased  preponderance  in  ordinary  legislation,  settled 

1  K  Schirmacher,  The  Modem  Woman  s  Rights  Movement,  trans,  by  C.  C.  Eck- 
hardt  (New  York,  19 12),  58-96;  B.  Mason,  the  Story  of  the  Woman's  Suffrage 
Movement  (London,  191 1);  E.  S.  Pankhurst,  The  Suffragette;  the  History  of  the 
Woman's  Militant  Suffrage  Movement,  1905-1910  (London,  1911);  A.  L.  Metcatt, 
Woman's  Effort;  A  Chronicle  of  British  Women's  Fifty  Years'  Struggle  for  Citizen- 
ship (New  "York,  1917).  The  subject  is  surveyed  briefly  in  May  and  Holland, 
Constitutional  History,  III,  59-66.  For  a  resume  of  the  spread  of  woman  suffrage, 
see  P.  O.  Ray,  "Woman  Suffrage  in  Foreign  Countries,"  in  Amcr.  Polit.  Set. 
Rev.,  Aug.,  1918,  pp.  469-474. 

2  See  p.  154. 


,    3  GOVERNMENTS   01     EUROPE 

the  pressing  question  of  the  powers  of  the  upper  chamber  and 
thu>  cleared  the  way  for  an  early  consideration  of  the  problems 
of  electoral  reform;  and  during  the  summer  of  [912  an  im- 
portant Government  bill  on  this  subjecl  was  introduced.  Thre< 
chiei  changes  were  proposed:  the  expansion  of  the  electorate 
to  include  practically  all  adult  males,  the  abolition  of  plural 
voting,  and  the  simplification  of  the  system  of  registration. 
Woman  suffrage  was  not  included;  and  there  was  no  pro- 
vision for  a  redistribution  of  seats.  The  Government  freely 
admitted  that  a  redistribution  was  desirable,  but  said  thai  it 
could  not  be  carried  out  equitably  until  the  composition  and 
distribution  of  the  electorate  should  have  been  fully  determined. 
After  a  few  months  of  intermittent  debate  the  measure  became 
so  encumbered  with  amendments  —  most  of  them  relating  in 
one  way  or  another  to  the  enfranchisement  of  women  —  that  the 
Speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons  ruled  that  a  new  bill  would 
have  to  be  prepared.  Opposition,  meanwhile,  had  developed 
in  so  many  quarters,  and  the  Government's  energies  were  so 
largely  absorbed  by  other  issues,  that,  in  January.  [913,  the 
bill  was  withdrawn  and  the  project  dropped.  During  the  next 
eighteen  months  a  less  ambitious  measure,  prohibiting  plural 
voting  at  general  parliamentary  elections  (although  allowing  it 
at  by-elections),  was  twice  passed  by  the  lower,  though  twice 
rejected  by  the  upper,  chamber ;  and  when  the  Great  War  came 
on,  in  August,  1914.  this  part  of  the  Liberal  program  seemed 
about  to  be  realized.1  Under  the  stress  of  international  com- 
plications, the  bill  was  promptly  abandoned. 

The  ultimate  effect  of  the  war  was,  none  the  less,  to  set  for- 
ward the  cause  of  electoral  reform  in  wholly  unexpected  fashion  ; 
and  on  February  6,  1918,  the  law  under  which  all  parliamentary 
elections  are  now  held  was  placed  on  the  statute  book.  It  was 
not  by  choice  that  the  Government  turned  its  attention  to 
electoral  questions  while  the  nation  was  still  fighting  for  its  life 
within  hearing  of  the  Channel  ports.  Rather,  it  was  com- 
pelled to  do  so  by  the  sheer  breakdown  of  the  electoral  system, 
caused  by  wholesale  enlistments  in  the  army  and  by  the  farther 
dislocation  of  population  arising  from  the  development  oi  war 
industries.  The  situation  was  bad  enough  in  county,  municipal, 
and  parish  elections.  But  a  parliamentary  election  under  the 
new  conditions  would  have  been  a  farce.  By  successive  special 
acts,  and  with  general  consent,  the  life  of  the  parliament  chosen 
in  December,  19 10,  was  prolonged,  in  order  to  defer,  and  per- 
1  Under  the  terms  of  the  Parliament  A.d  of  1911.     Seep.  155. 


PARLIAMENT:   THE   HOUSE   OF   COMMONS        129 

haps  to  avoid  altogether,  a  war-time  election.  A  general  elec- 
tion, however,  there  must  eventually  be  ;  and  whether  before  or 
after  the  cessation  of  hostilities,  it  would  demand,  in  all  justice, 
a  radically  altered  system  of  registration  and  voting,  if  not  new 
franchises  and  other  important  changes.  At  the  instigation  of 
the  cabinet,  Parliament  therefore  took  up  the  question  in  the 
summer  of  1916,  and  the  preliminary  consideration  of  a  new 
electoral  law  was  intrusted  to  a  special  commission,  chosen  by 
the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons  and  presided  over  by 
him,  and  made  up  with  much  care  to  represent  in  proper  pro- 
portion, not  only  the  parties  and  groups  in  Parliament,  but  the 
various  bodies  of  public  opinion  on  electoral  questions  through- 
out the  United  Kingdom. 

This  "  Speaker's  Conference,"  consisting  of  thirty-six  members 
from  both  houses,  began  its  work  October  10,  1916.1  Its  report 
was  presented  to  the  House  of  Commons  in  the  following  March, 
and  on  May  5  a  bill  based  upon  its  recommendations  was  in- 
troduced as  a  Government  measure.  Debate  proceeded  inter- 
mittently until  December  7,  when  the  bill,  considerably  enlarged, 
was  passed  and  sent  up  to  the  House  of  Lords.  Here,  seventeen 
days  were  devoted  to  the  project,  and  on  January  30  the  measure 
was  returned  to  the  House  of  Commons  with  eighty-seven  pages 
of  amendments.  Pressure  of  time  made  for  compromise,  and 
on  February  6  the  houses  came  into  agreement  upon  a  completed 
bill,  which  forthwith  received  the  king's  assent. 

The  Representation  of  the  People  Act  of  19 18  :  the  Suffrage. 
—  This  new  Representation  of  the  People  Act  was  primarily  a 
piece  of  suffrage  legislation.  Yet  it  was  a  great  deal  more  than 
that.  Upon  the  basis  of  a  doubled  electorate  it  erected  an 
electoral  system  which  was  almost  entirely  new ;  and  the  measure 
itself  is  to  be  thought  of  as  a  general  electoral  law,  more  compre- 
hensive, and  even  revolutionary,  than  any  kindred  act  in  English 
history.  Effort  to  adapt  electoral  machinery  to  the  conditions 
entailed  by  the  war  early  convinced  the  Speaker's  Conference 
that  the  old  practice  of  defining  franchises  in  terms  of  relation- 
ship to  property  would  have  to  be  discontinued,  and  that  in 
lieu  thereof  it  would  be  necessary  to  adopt  the  principle  that 
the  suffrage  is  a  personal  privilege,  possessed  by  the  individual 
simply  as  a  citizen.  The  two  houses  accepted  this  view,  and 
hence  the  act  swept  away  the  entire  mass  of  existing  intricate 
parliamentary  franchises  and  extended  the  suffrage  to  all  male 

1  J.  King,  "The  Speaker's  Conference  on  Electoral  Reform,"  in  Contemp.  Rev., 
Mar.,  1917. 


I3o  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

subjects  of  the  British  crown  twenty-one  year-  <>i'  age  or  over, 
and  resident  for  six  months  in  premises  in  a  British  or  [rish 
constituency,  without  regard  to  value  or  kind.'  It  is  no  Longer 
sary  that  the  voter  be  at  bis  home  on  polling  day  in  order 
to  cast  ids  ballot.  He  may  arrange  to  receive  and  return  the 
ballot-paper  by  post.  Even  under  normal  condition-,  this 
liberates  from  practical  disfranchisement  many  thousands  of 
men  — merchant  seamen,  commercial  travelers,  fishermen, 
and  others  —  whose  occupations  keep  them  away  from  their 
homes.  Under  the  war  conditions  existing  when  the  act  was 
passed  the  provision  meant  very  much  more  than  that.  The 
main  immediate  purpose  of  the  measure  was,  indeed,  to  bring 
back  into  the  electorate  the  millions  of  men  whose  military  and 
naval  service  temporarily  disfranchised  them  under  the  old 
system.  Full  provision  was  accordingly  made  for  the  regis- 
tration of  soldiers  and  sailors  in  their  home  constituencies.  If 
within  reasonable  distance,  they  may  personally  vote  by  post; 
if  not.  they  may  designate  persons  at  home  to  act  as  their  proxies 
and  vote  in  their  behalf.  Furthermore,  the  voting  age  for  men 
who  rendered  military  or  naval  service  in  the  Great  War  was  fixed 
at  nineteen,  rather  than  twenty-one. 

Contrary  to  expectation,  plural  voting  survived.  The  Con- 
servative elements  insisted  upon  retaining  it  as  a  means  of 
preventing  the  submerging  of  the  more  educated  and  more 
wealthy  part  of  the  electorate,  and  the  Liberals  pressed  their 
point  only  to  the  extent  of  securing  a  limitation  of  the  number 
of  votes  that  any  one  elector  may  cast  to  two.  Under  two 
conditions  one  may  have  a  second  vote:  (i)  as  an  occupier  for 
business  purposes  of  premises  worth  £10  a  year  in  a  constitu- 
ency other  than  that  of  one's  residence,  and  (2)  as  the  holder  of 
_-ree  from  any  of  the  several  universities  named  in  the  an. 
The  number  of  university  representatives  was  increased,  and 
also  of  universities  entitled  to  representation  as  such,  and  the 
university  franchise  -  -  which  had  long  been  under  fire,  and 
which  the  unsuccessful  electoral  bill  of  191 2  proposed  to  abolish 
-  was  broadened  by  being  extended  to  recipients  of  any  degree, 
instead  of  merely  holders  of  the  older  arts  degrees.2 

1  Aliens,  bankrupts,  idiots,  and  peers  arc  disqualified,  but  receipt  <>i  poor  relief 
or  other  alms  no  longer  counts  as  a  disqualification.  A  trace  of  tin  property  quah 
iication  survives  in  the  provision  that,  as  an  alternative  to  six  monl  bs'  residence,  a 
man  may  qualify  as  a  voter  in  a  district  by  showing  that  he  ha-  occupied  business 
premises  of  an  annual  value  of  not  less  than  ten  pounds  in  the  b<  rough  or  count) 
for  six  mont  on  January  15  or  July  15. 

2  University  representation  was  provided  for  as  follows:  Oxford.  2;  Cambridge, 

mdon,  1";  other  English  universities  (Durham,  Manchester,  Liverpool,  Leeds, 


PARLIAMENT:  THE   HOUSE  OF   COMMONS        131 

The  outbreak  of  the  war  in  19 14  seemed  to  end  all  hope  of 
'early  legislation  on  woman  suffrage.  The  effect  was,  however, 
quite  the  opposite.  Within  two  years  and  a  half  the  conflict 
brought  the  suffragists  an  advantage  which  no  amount  of  agita- 
tion had  ever  won  for  them,  i.e.,  the  formal  backing  of  the  gov- 
ernment, and  a  few  months  more  carried  their  cause  to  a  victorious 
conclusion  which  might  not  have  been  reached  in  a  full  decade 
of  peace.  Now  that  men  were  to  have  the  suffrage  as  persons, 
it  was  more  than  ever  difficult  to  withhold  it  from  women.  In- 
deed, in  the  present  juncture  —  in  the  face  of  woman's  incal- 
culable services  to  the  nation  during  the  war  —  to  withhold 
it  was  quite  impossible.  Powerful  opposition,  of  course,  was 
raised.  All  of  the  old  anti-suffrage  arguments  were  heard  again, 
and  in  addition  it  was  contended,  with  more  or  less  plausibility, 
that  a  woman's  enfranchisement  act  ought  not  to  be  put  on  the 
statute  book  without  a  referendum,  or  by  a  parliament  which 
had  overrun  its  time  by  two  full  years,  or  while  three  million 
men,  including  more  than  one  fifth  of  the  members  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  were  absent  in  military  service.  The  proposal  to 
admit  women  to  the  suffrage  only  at  the  age  of  thirty  was  ob- 
jected to  as  arbitrary  and  illogical,  especially  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  more  than  three  fourths  of  the  women  employed  in  the 
munition  plants  were  under  the  age  indicated.  One  debater 
remarked  that  it  would  be  just  as  rational  to  give  the  franchise 
to  women  with  red  hair  and  make  hair-dyeing  a  corrupt  practice  ! 
The  reason  for  this  feature  of  the  bill  was  simple  enough,  i.e.,  to 
prevent  female  voters  from  heavily  outnumbering  the  males. 

Still  other  objections  were  raised :  (1)  that  six  million  inex- 
perienced woman  voters  ought  not  to  be  added  to  the  electorate 
at  precisely  the  time  when  the  problems  of  war,  peace,  and 
reconstruction  were  to  make  the  largest  demands  upon  the 
electoral  capacities  of  the  nation ;  (2)  that,  in  the  words  of  Mrs. 
Humphrey  Ward,  the  Act  would  "  cripple  disastrously  the  in- 
dispensable conservative  forces  of  the  country  at  a  time  when 
there  is  a  most  imperative  need  of  a  due  balance  between  con- 
servative and  liberal  principles  and  influences  "  ;  (3)  that  the 
wholesale  enfranchisement  of  women  was  dictated  largely  by 
the  Labor  party,  which  expected  to  turn  the  new  stream  of 
electoral  power  to  its  own  advantage ;  and  (4)  that  while  the 
present  measure  was  so  drawn  as  to  keep  male  voters  in  the 

Sheffield,  Birmingham,  and  Bristol),  2;  the  Welsh  University,  1;  the  Scottish 
universities  (St.  Andrews,  Glasgow,  Aberdeen,  and  Edinburgh),  3;  Dublin,  2; 
National  (Irish)  University,  1 ;   and  Queen's  (of  Belfast),  1  —  a  total  of  15. 


i32 


GOVERNMEN  l>   OF    EUROPE 


majority,  the  age  disparity  between  men  and  women  would 
hardly  outlast  another  parliament,  and  that  when  the  inevitable 
equalization  should  take  place  woman  voters  would  be  in  a 
majority  by  upwards  of  two  million-.1 

\  finally  passed,  the  act  conferred  the  suffrage  on  every 
woman  over  thirty  years  of  age  who  is  herself,  or  whose  husband 
is.  entitled  to  be  registered  as  a  local  government  elector  in  respa  t 
of  the  occupation  of  a  dwelling-house,  without  regard  to  value, 
or  of  land  or  premises  mot  being  a  dwelling  house)  of  a  yearly 
value  of  not  less  than  £5.  At  the  age  of  thirty  and  upwards, 
a  woman  may  vote  also  for  a  university  member  if  sin  i-  a 
graduate  of  a  university  that  confers  degrees  on  women,  or  if  she 
has  fulfilled  the  conditions  that  would  entitle  a  man  to  a  degri  e. 

The  effect  of  the  foregoing  legislation  was  to  double  the  British 
electorate  at  a  stroke.  The  reform  act  of  1832  created  half  a 
million  new  electors,  raising  the  proportion  of  electors  to  the  total 
population  to  one  in  twenty-four;  the  act  of  1867  created  a  million 
electors,  raising  the  proportion  to  one  in  twelve;  the  act  of  1884 
added  two  million  electors,  making  the  proportion  one  in  seven  ; 
the  act  of  1918  added  eight  millions,  bringing  the  proportion  up 
to  the  remarkable  figure  of  one  in  three.  Of  the  eight  million 
new  voters,  one  fourth  were  men,  and  three  fourths,  women.'1 

Representation  of  the  People  Act  of  1918  :  Other  Features. 
Unlike  the  scores  of  electoral  bills  that  had  marie  their  appear- 
ance  in  Parliament  since  1885,  the  new  act  bracketed  redis- 
tribution with  franchise  reform.  Fixing  as  a  standard  one 
member  for  every  70,000  people  in  Great  Britain,  and  one  for 
every  43,000  in  Ireland,  it  (together  with  the  separate  act  pa 
for  Ireland)  bestowed  representation  on  thirty-one  new  boroughs 
an<  1  took  it  away  from  forty-four,  and  in  other  ways  so  rearranged 
the  constituencies  as  to  bring  up  the  whole  number  of  members 
of  the  House  of  Commons  —  already  the  largest  legislative 
assemblage  in  the  world  —  from  670  to  707.  England,  with 
492  seats,  gained  31;  Wales  with  36,  Scotland  with  74,  and 
Ireland  with  105,  gained  2  each.3    The  disproportionate  repre- 

1  matter  of  fact,  tin-  National  Union  of  Woman  Suffi  ies  officially 

announced,  as  soon  as  the  measure  was  on  the  statute  I k,  that  its  nexl  task  was 

t<.  force  the  lowering  <»f  the  age  limit  for  I  iters. 

1  For  the  effe  '-of  the  law  upon  the  local  elei  torate  see  p.  2  29. 
I  he  distribution,  in  full,  is  as  follows: 

oughs  I  'niversilies        I  0  ■ 

England  and  Wales 254  8                   528 

tland 38               33  3                    74 

Ireland _8o              _2i  _4                    £°5 

,372              320  15                     707 


PARLIAMENT:   THE   HOUSE  OF   COMMONS        133 

sentation  of  Ireland  remained,  but  it  was  understood  to  be 
subject  to  change  when  the  Home  Rule  Act  already  on  the 
statute  book,  or  some  substitute  for  it,  should  be  put  into  effect.1 
The  act  failed  to  provide  for  any  future  redistributions  of  seats, 
periodic  or  otherwise. 

The  Speaker's  Conference  recommended  a  general  plan  of 
proportional  representation,  and  the  House  of  Lords,  looking 
ahead  to  the  time  when  the  conservative  elements  are  likely 
to  be  in  a  decided  minority,  held  out  resolutely  for  the  prin- 
ciple. Five  times  the  House  of  Commons  rejected  the  proposal 
outright.  But  in  the  end  the  chamber  was  obliged,  in  order  to 
save  the  bill,  to  accept  an  optional  provision  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  commission  to  prepare  a  plan  for  the  election  of  one 
hundred  members  by  proportional  representation  in  specially 
formed  constituencies  returning  from  three  to  sevenmembers.  To 
the  date  of  writing  (1920)  no  action  in  this  direction  has  been 
taken,  and  it  seems  probable  that  this  portion  of  the  law  will 
remain  a  dead  letter.  In  university  constituencies  returning 
two  or  more  members,  however,  the  elections  must  be  according 
to  the  principle  of  proportional  representation,  each  elector 
having  one  transferable  vote.2 

Finally  may  be  mentioned  the  fact  that  the  act  thoroughly 
revised  the  system  of  registration  of  voters.  Except  in  Ireland, 
the  register  in  each  parliamentary  borough  and  county  is  now 
made  up  twice  a  year  (spring  and  autumn)  instead  of  once; 
and  responsibility  for  the  work  is  placed  upon  the  town  clerks 
and  clerks  of  the  county  councils.  Formerly,  registration  was 
a  difficult  and  costly  process ;  but  the  simplification  of  the  fran- 
chise has  lightened  the  task,  notwithstanding  the  doubling  of 

1  See  p.  2Q5._ 

2  The  adoption  of  some  device  for  the  protection  of  minorities  against  the  "tyr- 
anny of  majorities"  has  occupied  the  attention  of  political  thinkers  in  England, 
as  elsewhere,  for  man}-  generations.  John  Stuart  Mill  ur^'ed  that  the  system  of 
proportional  representation  devised  by  Thomas  Hare  be  incorporated  in  the  reform 
bill  of  1867,  but  the  suggestion  aroused  little  intere-t.  Mr.  Leonard  Courtney 
(later  Lord  Courtney  of  Pen  with)  advocated  a  similar  step  in  1884,  with  like  re- 
sults. A  royal  commission  appointed  in  December,  1908,  to  study  foreign  elec- 
toral systems  and  to  recommend  modifications  of  the  English  system,  thoroughly 
considered  the  proportional  plan  and  reported,  in  1910,  unfavorably.  (Cd.  5163.) 
The  general  question  of  proportional  representation  in  relation  to  Great  Britain  i*. 
discussed  in  J.  Humphries,  Proportional  Representation  (London,  iqii);  J.  F. 
Williams,  Proportional  lit  presentation  and  British  PoHtit  5  (New  York, 
revised  and  republished  under  the  title,  The  Reform  of  Political  Representation 
(London,  1918) ;  and  P.  E.  Elandin,  La  question  de  la  representation  proportiomvlle 
en  Angleterre  el  dans  les  colonies  Anglaises.  I^e  vol-  Paris.  1014,1. 
Proportional  representation  was  introduced  in  the  municipal  elections  of  Ireland 
in  1919. 


134  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

the  ele<  torate.     The  cost  is  paid  half  out  of  local  rates  and  half 
out  of  the  national  treasury. ' 

Parliamentary  Elections.  —  Under  our  American  system  of 
government,  elections  fall  at  fixed  intervals,  regardless  of  the 
condition  of  public  affairs  or  the  state  of  public  feeling.  In 
England,  local  elections  take  place  at  stated  periods,  but  national 
ms  do  not.  The  only  positive  requirement  concerning  the 
latter  is  that  an  election  must  be  ordered  when  a  parliament  has 
attained  the  maximum  lifetime  allowed  by  law.  Prior  to  1694 
there  was  no  stipulation  upon  this  subject,  and  the  king  could 
keep  a  parliament  in  existence  as  long  as  he  liked.  Charles  II 
retained  for  seventrm  years  the  parliament  called  at  his  a 
sion.  From  1694  to  1716,  however,  the  maximum  term  of  a 
parliament  was  three  years;  from  1716  to  1911  it  was  seven 
years;  to-day  it  is  five  years.2  In  point  of  fact,  parliaments 
never  last  through  the  maximum  period,  and  an  average  interval 
of  three  or  four  years  between  elections  has  been  the  rule.3  In 
most  instances  an  election  is  precipitated  more  or  less  unexpect- 
edly on  an  appeal  to  the  country  by  a  defeated  ministry,  and  it 
often  happens  that  an  election  turns  almost  entirely  upon  a 
single  issue  and  practically  assumes  the  character  of  a  national 
referendum  upon  that  subject.  This  was  preeminently  true  of 
the  election  of  December,  1910,  at  which  the  country  was  asked 
to  sustain  the  Asquith  government  in  its  purpose  to  curb  the 
independent  authority  of  the  House  of  Lords.  In  any  event, 
the  campaign  by  which  the  election  is  preceded  is  brief.  Ap- 
peals to  the  voters  are  made  principally  through  public  speak- 
ing, the  controversial  and  illustrated  press,  pamphlets  and  hand- 
bills, parades  and  mass  meetings,  and  the  generous  use  of  placards, 
cartoons,  and  other  devices  designed  to  attract  and  focus  atten- 
tion. Plans  are  laid,  arguments  are  formulated,  and  leadership 
in  public  appeal  is  assumed  by  the  members  of  the  cabinet, 

1  On  the  reform  act  of  [918,  in  general,  see  J.  R.  Seager,  Parliamentary  Elections 
under  the  Reform  Ad  of  xgi8  '  I. um  Ion.  1918);  S.  Mayer,  R>  presentation  of  the  People 
Act  and  the  Redistribution  of  Seats  (Ireland)  Aet,  iqi8  (London,  1918) ;  H.  Fraser, 
The  Representation  of  ti;  1'  ondon,  1918) ;  A.  O.  Hobbs  and  F.  J.  Ogden, 
Guide  to  the  Representation  of  the  People  Act  of  IpiS  (London,  1918);  J.  V  R.  .Mar- 
riott, "The  New  Electorate  and  the  New  Legislature,"  in  Fortn.  Rev.,  Mar.,  1918; 

II.  Dickinson,  "The  Greatest  Reform  Ait,"  in  Conlemp.  A';.,  Mar.,  1918; 
!'.  Hamelle,  "Levotefeminin  en  Angleterre,"  in  Rev.  Polit.  ct  Pari.,  Apr.,  1918;  and 
L.  V.  Holt,  "The  Parliamentary  Franchise,"  in  Jurid.  Rev.,  Mar.,  1919. 

2  The  Representation  of  the  People  Act  of  1867  made  the  duration  of  a  parlia- 
ment independent  of  a  demise  of  the  sovereign. 

3  An  exception,  of  course,  is  the  parliament  elected  in  December,  1910,  which  on 
account  of  war  condition^  extended  its  life,  by  successive  acts,  three  years  beyond 
the  maximum,  or  until  November,  1918.     See  p.  325. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE   II©USE   OE   COMMONS         135 

led  by  the  premier,  and,  on  the  other  side,  by  the  men  who  are 
the  recognized  leaders  of  the  parliamentary  Opposition.1 

When  a  parliament  is  dissolved,  a  royal  proclamation  is  forth- 
with issued  ordering  the  election  of  a  new  House  of  Commons, 
and  with  this  as  a  warrant,  the  chancellors  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland  issue  writs  of  election,  addressed  to  the  "  returning 
officers  "  of  the  counties  and  boroughs,  i.e.,  the  sheriffs  and  the 
mayors.2  Formerly,  these  returning  officers  exercised  their 
discretion,  within  limits  imposed  by  law,  in  fixing  the  "  elec- 
tion "  day,  and  also  the  "  polling  "  day  if  one  was  necessary, 
in  the  several  constituencies.  The  act  of  1918,  however,  allows 
no  such  leeway.  The  eighth  day  after  the  proclamation  goes 
forth  is  election  day  for  all  constituencies,  and  the  polling  takes 
place  nine  days  thereafter.  Save  in  one  contingency,  the  only 
thing  that  really  happens  on  election  day  is  the  nomination  of 
candidates.  So  far  as  the  law  is  concerned,  in  order  to  be 
nominated  it  is  necessary  merely  to  be  "  proposed,"  in  writing, 
by  a  registered  voter  of  the  constituency  and  "  assented  to  " 
by  nine  other  voters.  Actually,  of  course,  candidates  are  usually 
selected,  or  at  all  events  approved  in  advance,  by  the  local,  or 
even  the  national,  committee  of  the  party.3  The  contingency 
referred  to  arises  when  the  number  of  nominees  is  no  larger  than 
that  of  places  to  be  filled.  In  this  case,  the  returning  officer 
simply  declares  the  candidate,  or  candidates,  duly  elected,  and 
the  voters  are  not  brought  to  the  polls  at  all.  The  number  of 
such  uncontested  elections,  especially  in  Ireland,  is  always  large  ; 
the  proportion  sometimes  reaches  one  fourth  or  even  one  third. 
If,  however,  there  is  a  contest,  the  election  is  adjourned,  in  order 
that  a  "  poll,"  or  count  of  votes,  may  be  held  to  decide  between 
the  ri'val  candidates.  Formerly,  the  polling  —  while  com- 
pleted within  any  one  constituency  in  a  single  day  - —  dragged 
out  over  a  period  of  two  weeks  or  more,  making  it  easy  for  the 
plural  voter  to  go  from  district  to  district  and  cast  ballot  after 
ballot.     As  has  been  stated,  the  law  of  191 8  requires  the  polling 

1  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II,  Chap,  xxxiv;  M.  Ostrogorski,  Democracy 
and  the  Organization  of  Political  Parties,  trans,  by  F.  Clarke  (London,  1902),  I, 
442-501 ;  M.  MacDonaugh,  Book  of  Parliament  (London,  1897),  1-23.  Among 
numerous  articles  descriptive  of  English  parliamentary  elections  mention  may  be 
made  of  H.  W.  Lucy,  "The  Methods  of  a  British  General  Election,"  in  Forum, 
Oct.,  1900;  S.  Brooks,  "English  and  American  Elections,"  in  Fort.  Rev.,  Feb., 
1910;  W.  T.  Stead,  "The  General  Election  in  Great  Britain,"  in  Amer.  Rev.  of 
Revs.,  Feb.,  1910;  and  d'Haussonville,  "Dix  jours  en  Angleterre  pendant  les  elec- 
tions," in  Rev.  des  Deux  Mondes,  Feb.  1,  1910. 

2  For  the  form  of  the  writ  see  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  I  57. 

3  See  p.  267. 


GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

to  take  place  in  all  constituencies  on  the  same  day,  namely,  the 
ninth  after  the  day  on  which  the  nominations  arc  made. 

Down  to  i s 7  -  votes  were  cast  orally  and  publicly.  For  forty 
years,  however,  there  had  been  agitation  for  secrel  ballot.  The 
Chartists  made  the  reform  one  of  their  "six  points";  South 
Australia  introduced  the  system  in  1856,  and  other  Australasian 
dependencies  promptly  followed.'  In  1S72  a  Parliamentary  and 
Municipal  Elections  Act,  commonly  known  as  the  Ballot  Act, 
introduced  the  Australian  system  in  all  parliamentary  and 
municipal  elections,  except  the  elections  of  university  members. 
Furthermore,  it  substituted  written  for  oral  nominations,  de- 
fined and  imposed  penalties  for  various  electoral  offenses,  and 
to  some  extent  regulated  campaign  expenditures.  When, 
therefore,  the  properly  qualified  and  registered  elector  appears 
to-day  at  the  voting-place  of  his  precinct,  he  receives  an  official 
ballot-paper,  duly  stamped,  and  bearing  the  names  of  the  can- 
didates arranged  in  alphabetical  order.  He  takes  this  paper 
to  a  screened  compartment  and  places  a  cross  mark  opposite 
the  name  or  names  of  those  for  whom  he  desires  to  vote.  Fold- 
ing the  paper  so  as  to  conceal  the  marks  he  has  placed  on  it,  he 
deposits  it  in  the  ballot-box,  which  is  locked  and  sealed  and  so 
constructed  that  papers  cannot  be  withdrawn  without  unlock- 
ing it. 

During  the  voting,  candidates'  agents  are  allowed  to  be 
present  in  the  polling-station ;  but  they,  as  well  as  the  officials, 
are  bound  by  oath  not  to  divulge  who  have  voted,  and  are  for- 
bidden to  seek  to  induce  any  voter  to  tell  how  he  intends  to  vote 
or  has  voted,  to  attempt  to  ascertain  the  number  of  a  voter's 
ballot  (by  which  it  could  be  identified),  or,  indeed,  to  interfere 
with  the  voter  in  any  way  whatsoever.  At  the  close  of  the  poll 
the  presiding  officer  has  to  account  to  the  returning  officer  for 
all  of  the  papers  intrusted  to  him  ;  and  the  candidates1  agents 
are  with  the  returning  officer  when  he  counts  the  used,  unused, 
and  spoiled  papers  and  tabulates  the  vote.  The  writ  which 
served  as  the  returning  officer's  authority  is  indorsed  with  a 
certificate  of  the  election  and.  together  with  all  of  the  ballot- 
papers,  is  transmitted  to  the  clerk  of  the  crown  in  chancery. 
In  the  United  States  the  House  of  Representatives  is  judge  of 

1  On  the  continent  the  ballot  was  introduced  in  Piedmont  in  1848  and  extended 

throughout  the  kingdom  of  Italy  in  1861,  and  it  was  provided  for  in  the  German 

electoral  law  of  1869.     In  the  United  States  voting  by  ballot  was  common  from  the 

itionary   period,   although   the  "Australian"   system,   effectually  securing 

I  qoI   prevail  until  late  in  the  nineteenth  century.     The  first  complete 

law  on  the  subjeel  enacted  by  Massachusetts  in  [888. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF   COMMONS         137 

the  qualifications  of  its  members,  and  this  means  that  a  disputed 
election  is  decided  by  the  House  itself.  A  similar  practice 
formerly  prevailed  in  England.  But  there  it  was  found  that 
politics  played  too  large  a  part  in  the  decisions,  and  in  1868  the 
trial  of  election  petitions  —  which  may  be  presented  by  a  de- 
feated candidate  or  by  any  voter  —  whether  filed  on  the  ground 
of  a  miscount  or  on  a  charge  of  corrupt  and  illegal  practices, 
was  handed  over  to  a  judicial  body  consisting  of  two  judges  of 
the  King's  Bench  division  of  the  High  Court  of  Justice,  selected 
by  the  other  judges  of  that  division.1 

Regulation  of  Electoral  Expenditures.  —  Time  was,  and 
within  the  memory  of  men  still  living,  when  an  English  parlia- 
mentary election  was  attended  by  corrupt  practices  so  universal 
and  so  shameless  as  to  appear  almost  more  ludicrous  than  cul- 
pable. Voters  as  a  matter  of  course  accepted  the  bribes  that 
were  tendered  them  and  ate  and  drank  and  smoked  and  rollicked 
at  the  candidate's  expense  throughout  the  electoral  period  and 
were  considered  men  of  conscience  indeed  if  they  did  not  end 
by  going  over  to  the  opposition.  The  notorious  Northampton 
election  of  1768,  in  the  course  of  which  a  body  of  voters  number- 
ing under  a  thousand  were  the  recipients  of  hospitalities  from 
the  backers  of  three  candidates  which  aggregated  upwards  of  a 
million  pounds,  was,  of  course,  exceptional ;  but  the  history  of 
countless  other  cases  differed  from  it  only  in  the  amounts  laid 
out.2  To-day  an  altogether  different  state  of  things  obtains. 
From  having  been  one  of  the  most  corrupt,  Great  Britain  has 
become  one  of  the  most  exemplary  of  nations  in  all  that  pertains 
to  the  proprieties  of  electoral  procedure.  The  Ballot  Act  of 
1872  contained  provisions  calculated  to  strengthen  preexisting 
corrupt  practices  acts,  but  the  real  turning  point  was  the  adoption 
of  the  comprehensive  Corrupt  and  Illegal  Practices  Act  of  1883. 
By  this  measure  bribery  (in  seven  enumerated  forms)  and  treat- 
ing were  made  punishable  by  imprisonment  or  fine  and,  under 

1  On  electoral  procedure  see  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,  Chap,  x;  Mac- 
Donaugh,  Book  of  Parliament,  24-50;  H.  J.  Bushby,  Manual  of  the  Practice  of 
Elections  for  the  United  Kingdom  (4th  ed.,  London,  1874) ;  W.  "Woodings,  Conduct 
and  Management  of  Parliamentary  Elections  (4th  ed.,  London,  1900) ;  E.  T.  Powell, 
Essentials  of  Seif -Government,  England  and  Wales  (London,  1909) ;  P.  J.  Blair. 
Handbook  of  Parliamentary  Elections  (Edinburgh,  1909) ;  and  H.  Fraser,  Law  of 
Parliamentary  Elections  and  Election  Petitions  (2d  ed.,  London,  1910).  A  volume 
filled  with  interesting  information  is  J.  Grego,  History  of  Parliamentary  Elections 
and  Electioneering  from  the  Stuarts  to  Queen  Victoria  (new  ed.,  London,  1892). 
The  monumental  work  on  the  subject  is  M.  Powell  [ed.],  Rogers  on  Elections,  3 
vols.  (16th  ed..  London,  1897). 

2  For  an  interesting  account  of  electioneering  in  earlier  days  see  Seymour  and 
Frary,  Hoic  the  World  Votes,  I,  Chap.  v. 


138  GOVERNMENTS  <)F   EUROPE 

varying  conditions,  political  disqualification.  The  number  and 
functions  of  the  persons  who  may  be  employed  by  the  candidate 
tssist  in  a  campaign  were  prescribed,  every  candidate  being 
required  to  haw  a  aingle  authorized  agent  charged  with  the 
disbursement  of  all  moneys  (save  certain  specified  "personal  " 
expenditures)  in  the  candidate's  behalf,  and  with  the  duty  of 
submitting  to  the  returning  officer  within  thirty-five  days  after 
the  election  a  sworn  statement  covering  all  receipts  and  expen- 
ditures.1 And,  finally,  the  act  fixed,  upon  a  sliding  scale  in 
proportion  to  the  size  of  the  constituencies,  the  maximum  amounts 
which  candidates  might  legitimately  expend.  En  boroughs 
containing  not  more  than  2000  registered  voters  the  amount  was 
put  at  £350,  with  an  additional  £30  for  every  thousand  voters 
above  the  number  mentioned.  In  rural  constituencies,  where 
outlays  will  normally  be  larger,  the  sum  of  £650  was  allowed 
when  the  number  of  registered  electors  was  under  2000,  with 
£60  for  each  additional  thousand.  In  addition,  the  candidate 
was  allowed  an  outlay  of  £100  for  expenses  of  a  purely  personal 
character.2 

In  later  years  it  was  felt  that  these  amounts  were  too  large, 
and  the  Representation  of  the  People  Act  of  191 8  set  up  a  new  and 
reduced  scale.  In  county  constituencies  the  maximum  expendi- 
ture (aside  from  a  small  agent's  fee)  is  yd.  (14  cents)  per  elector, 
and  in  borough  constituencies  5<i.  (10  cents).  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  whereas  formerly  the  outlays  of  the 
returning   officers   for   ballot  papers,  polling-stations,  printing, 

1  On  the  functions  and  influence  of  the  agents  see  Lowell,  Government  of  England, 
1,481-484. 

2  On  the  adoption  of  the  Corrupt  and  Illegal  Practices  Act  of  1883  sec  May  and 
Holland,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  III,  3i~33.  and  Seymour,  Electoral 
Reform  in  England  and  Wales,  Chaps,  xiii-xiv.  The  actual  operation  of  the  system 
may  be  illustrated  by  a  specific  case.  At  the  election  of  [906  the  maximum  ex- 
penditure legally  possible  for  Mr.  Lloyd  George  in  his  sparsely  populated  Carnarvon 
constituency  was  £470.  His  authorized  agent,  after  the  election,  reported  an  out- 
lay of  £50  o'n  agents,  U27  on  clerks  and  messengers,  £189  on  printing,  postage,  etc., 
£30  on  public  meetings,  £25  on  committee  rooms,  and  £40  on  miscellaneous  matters 
—  a  total  of  £361.  The  candidate's  personal  expenditure  amounted  to  £92,  so  that 
the  total  outlay  of  £462  fell  short  by  a  scant  £8  of  the  sum  that  might  legally  have 
been  laid  out.  Divided  among  the  3221  votes  that  Mr.  Lloyd  George  received,  his 
outlav  per  vote  was  2s.  lod.  At  the  same  election  Mr.  Asquith's  expenditure  was 
£727';  Mr.  Winston  Churchill's,  £844;  Mr.  John  Morley's,  6479;  Mr.  Keif  Hardies, 
£623;  Mr.  James  Bryce's,  £480.  In  non-contested  constituencies  expenditures 
are  small.  In  1906  Mr.  Redmond's  was  reported  to  be  £25  and  Mr.  William 
O'Brien's,  £20.  In  1900  a  total  of  1 103  candidates  for  670  seats  expended  £777,429 
in  getting  3,579,345  votes;  in  1906,  1273  candidates  for  the  same  670  seats  ex- 
pended £1,166,858  in  getting  5,645,104  votes;  in  January,  1010,  1311  candidates 
laid  out  £1,296,382  in  getting  6,667,394  votes.  A  well-informed  article  is  E.  Por- 
ritt,  "Political  Corruption  in  England,"  in  N.  Amcr.  Rev.,  Nov.  16,  1906. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF   COMMONS        139 

clerk  hire,  and  the  fees  and  traveling  expenses  of  the  returning 
officers  themselves,  had  to  be  met  by  the  candidates,  these 
charges  have  now  (by  the  act  of  191 8)  been  placed  upon  the 
state.  A  farther  novel  and  interesting  requirement  of  the 
new  law,  intended  to  prevent  an  undue  multiplicity  of  candidates, 
is  that  every  person  offering  himself  for  election  to  Parliament 
shall  deposit  £150,  to  be  returned  to  him  if  he  gets  more  than 
one  eighth  of  the  votes  recorded  in  his  district,  but  otherwise 
to  be  forfeited.1  The  range  of  expenditure  still  permitted  by 
law  is,  of  course,  considerable,  and  the  records  of  election  cases 
brought  into  the  courts  demonstrate  that  in  practice  its  limits  are 
often  exceeded.  None  the  less,  the  effect  of  the  legislation  on 
the  subject  has  unquestionably  been  to  restrain  the  outpouring 
of  money  by  candidates  and  their  backers,  and  therefore  to  purify 
politics,  and  at  the  same  time  to  enable  men  of  moderate  means 
to  stand  for  election  who  otherwise  would  be  at  grave  disadvan- 
tage as  against  wealthier  and  more  lavish  competitors. 

1  Since  1882  parliamentary  candidates  in  Canada  have  been  required  to  deposit 
with  the  returning  officer  the  sum  of  £40,  which  is  returned  only  in  case  the  candidate 
is  successful  or  obtains  a  number  of  votes  at  least  equal  to  half  the  number  polled 
by  the  candidate  elected. 


CHAPTER   IX 

PARLIAMENT:    THE    HOUSE    OF    LORDS 

Composition  :  the  Hereditary  Peers.  The  British  House  of 
LonU  is  the  oldest  second  chamber  among  contemporary  parlia- 
mentary bodies.  It  is,  furthermore,  among  second  chambers, 
the  largest  and  the  most  purely  hereditary.  Its  descent  can  be 
traced  straight  from  the  Great  Council  of  the  Norman-Angevin 
period,  and  in  the  opinion  of  some  scholars,  from  the  witenagemot 
of  Anglo-Saxon  times.1  To  the  Council  belonged  originally  the 
nobility  and  the  clergy,  both  greater  and  lesser.  Practically, 
the  body  was  composed  of  the  most  influential  churchmen  and 
the  more  powerful  tenants-in-chicf  of  the  crown.  In  the  course 
of  time  the  lesser  clergy  ceased  to  attend ;  and  the  lesser  nobles 
eventually  found  it  to  their  advantage  to  cast  in  their  lot,  not 
with  the  great  barons  and  earls,  but  with  the  well-to-do,  although 
non-noble,  knights  of  the  shire.  From  the  elements  that  re- 
mained —  the  higher  clergy  and  the  greater  nobles  —  arose  the 
House  of  Lords.  The  lesser  barons,  the  knights  of  the  shire,  and 
the  burgesses,  on  the  other  hand,  combined  to  form  the  House 
of  Commons. 

As  constituted  to-day,  the  House  of  Lords  is  a  mixed  body. 
It  contains  not  fewer  than  six  distinct  groups  of  members,  who 
sit  by  various  rights  and  have  somewhat  different  status  and 
functions.  The  first  group  includes  the  princes  of  the  royal 
blood  who  are  of  age.  The  number  of  these  is  variable,  but 
never  large.  They  take  precedence  over  the  peers;  but  they 
rarely  appear  in  the  chamber,  and  hence  have  no  active  part 
in  its  proceedings.2 

1  "The  House  of  Lords  not  only  springs  out  of,  it  actually  is.  the  ancient  Witena- 
gemot. I  can  sec  no  break  between  the  two."  Freeman,  Growth  of  the  English 
Constitution,  62.  Freeman,  it  must  be  remembered,  was  prone  to  glorify  Anglo-Saxon 
institutions  and  to  underestimate  the  changes  wrought  by  the  Norman  Conquest. 
For  an  aide  statement  of  the  opposing  view  see  Adams  Origin  of  the  English  Con- 
stitution, Chaps,  i  iv.  An  authoritative  essay  on  the  origin  of  the  House  of  Lords 
is  J.  H.  Round,  Peerage  and  Pedigree  (London,  iqio),  I,  324-362. 

For  an  account  of  the  induction  of  the  Prince  of  Wales  as  a  member  of  the 
House  of  Lords  in  [918  see  London  Times  (Weekly  ed.),  Feb.  22,  1918,  p.  159. 

140 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE   OF   LORDS  141 

The  second  group  is  the  most  important  of  all.  It  consists 
of  the  peers  with  hereditary  seats,  who  fall  naturally  into  three 
classes:  (1)  peers  of  England,  created  before  the  union  with 
Scotland  in  1707;  (2)  peers  of  Great  Britain,  created  between 
the  date  mentioned  and  the  union  with  Ireland  in  1800;  and 
(3)  peers  of  the  United  Kingdom,  created  since  that  date.1 
Technically,  peers  are  created  by  the  sovereign ;  but  in  practice 
their  creation  is  controlled  by  the  cabinet  (mainly  by  the 
premier)  ;  and  the  object  may  be  either  to  honor  men  of  dis- 
tinction in  law,  letters,  science,  art,  statecraft,  or  business,  or  to 
alter  the  political  complexion  of  the  upper  chamber.2  The 
power  to  create  peerages  is  unlimited  3  and  is  .frequently  and 
freely  exercised.  With  exceptions  to  be  noted,  peerages  are 
hereditary,  and  the  heir  assumes  his  seat  at  the  age  of  twenty-one.4 
Peers  are  of  five  ranks  —  dukes,  marquises,  earls,  viscounts,  and 
barons.  The  complicated  rules  governing  the  precedence  of 
these  classes  are  of  large  social,  but  of  minor  political,  interest. 

A  peer  who  is  a  bankrupt,  or  is  under  sentence  for  felony,  is 
debarred  from  sitting  in  the  chamber.  But  a  man  who  inherits 
a  peerage  cannot  renounce  either  the  title  or  the  seat  that  goes 
with  it.  More  than  once  this  rule  has  been  a  source  of  personal 
embarrassment,  as  well  as  a  matter  of  political  importance; 
for  under  its  operation  able  and  ambitious  commoners  have 
been  compelled  to  surrender  a  seat  in  the  more  important  cham- 
ber and  to  take  a  wholly  undesired  place  in  the  upper  house.  In 
1895  Mr.  William  W.  Palmer,  later  Lord  Selborne,  inheriting 
a  peerage  but  wishing  to  remain  for  a  time  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  put  the  rule  to  a  test  by  neglecting  to  apply  for  a 

1  There  are  also  peers  of  Ireland  and  peers  of  Scotland.  But,  as  will  be  explained 
presently,  these  groups  sit  in  the  House  of  Lords  at  Westminster  only  by  representa- 

2  The  first  peerage  bestowed  purely  in  recognition  of  literary  achievement  was 
awarded  Tennyson  in  1884;  the  peerages  conferred  upon  Macaulay  and  Bulwer 
Lytton  arose  partly  from  political  considerations.  The  first  professional  artist 
to  be  honored  with  a  peerage  was  Lord  Leigh  ton,  in  1896.  Lord  Kelvin  and  Lord 
Lister  are  among  well-known  men  of  science  who  have  been  thus  honored.  Lord 
Goschen's  viscountcv  was  conferred,  with  universal  approval,  as  the  fitting  reward 
of  a  great  business  career.  The  earldom  of  General  Roberts  and  the  viscounties 
of  Generals  Wolseley  and  Kitchener  were  bestowed  in  recognition  of  military  dis- 
tinction. With  some  aptness  the  House  of  Lords  has  been  denominal  ed  "the  W  est- 
minster  Abbey  of  living  celebrities." 

'Except  that,  under  existing  law,  the  crown  cannot  (1)  create  a  petrol  Scot  Ian.  , 
(2)  create  a  peer  of  Ireland  otherwise  than  as  allowed  by  the  Act  of  Union  with 
Ireland,  and  (3)  direct  the  devolution  of  a  dignity  otherwise  than  111  accordance 
with  limitations  applying  in  the  case  of  grants  of  real  estate. 

4  Descent  is  by  the  rule  of  primogeniture,  and  the  heir  remains  a  commoner 
during  his  father's  lifetime. 


I42  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

writ  of  summons  as  a  peer.  The  decision  of  the  Commons,  how- 
ever, was  that  he  was  obligated  to  accepl  membership  in  the 
upper  chamber,  and  that  the  West  Edinburgh  -<  at  which  he  had 
occupied   in   the  lower  house  was  automatically  vacated.    In 

iqiq  Viscount  Astor  sought  to  rid  himself  of  his  newly  acquired 
title  with  a  view  to  continuing  in  the  House  of  Commons,  but 
could  find  no  way  to  do  it  ;  a  bill  which  would  have  made  it 
possible  was  defeated  in  the  lower  house  by  a  vote  of  169  to 
56.  A  general  measure  lor  the  removal  of  sex  disqualifications 
was  amended  in  the  House  of  Commons  in  iqio  to  permit 
peeresses-in-their-own-right  (of  whom  there  were  at  that  time 
twenty-five)  to  sit  and  vote  in  the  House  of  Lords;  but  the  pro- 
posal was  rejected  by  the  upper  chamber. 

Composition:  Representative  Peers,  Law  Lords,  and  Lords 
Spiritual.  ■ —  A  third  group  of  members  consists  of  the  repre- 
sentative peers  of  Scotland.  Under  the  Act  of  Union  of  1707, 
when  a  new  parliament  is  summoned  the  whole  body  of  Scottish 
peers  elects  sixteen  of  their  number  to  sit  as  their  representatives 
at  Westminster.  By  custom  the  election  takes  place  at  Holy- 
rood  Palace  in  the  city  of  Edinburgh.1  The  act  of  1 707  made  no 
provision  for  the  creation  of  Scottish  peers;  and  the  result  is 
that,  through  the  extinction  of  noble  families  and  the  conferring 
of  peerages  of  the  United"  Kingdom  upon  Scottish  peers,  the 
total  number  of  Scottish  peerages  has  been  reduced  from  165 
to  S3-2  The  tenure  of  a  Scottish  representative  peer  at  West- 
minster is  for  the  duration  of  a  single  parliament. 

A  fourth  group  of  members  is  the  Irish  representative  peers. 
The  Act  of  Union  of  1800  provided  that  not  all  of  the  peers  of 
Ireland  should  have  scats  in  the  House  of  Lords,  but  only  twenty- 
eight  of  them,  who  should  be  elected  for  life  by  the  general  body 
of  Irish  peers.  The  number  of  Irish  peerages  was  put  in  course 
of  gradual  reduction,  and  it  is  now  under  the  prescribed  maxi- 
mum of  one  hundred.3  Unlike  the  Scottish  peers,  Irish  p 
if  not  elected  to  the  House  of  Lords,  may  stand  for  election  to 
the  House  of  Commons,  although  they  cannot  represent  Irish 

1  For  the  process  of  (  nd  Custom  of  the  Constitution  (4th 

ed.),  I,  219-220. 

-  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,  305.     The  total  number  of  Scots  in  possi 
of  peerages  of  one  sort  or  another  was,  in  1919,  eighty-one. 

3  The  crown  was  authorized  to  create  only  one  [rish  peei  ry  th 

became  extinct.     For  thirty  years  preceding  the  conferring  ol  an  Irish  pen 
Mr.  Cur/on  before  he  went  to  India  as  viceroy  in  c8go  no  new  [rish  peerages  were 
established.      1  hi  mber  of  Irishmen  in  possession  of  peerages  of  all  kinds 

was,  in  1919,  one  hundred  and  sixty-eight. 


PARLIAMENT:   THE   HOUSE   OF   LORDS  143 

constituencies.1  While  members  of  the  lower  house,  however, 
they  cannot  be  elected  to  the  upper  one,  nor  can  they  partici- 
pate in  the  choice  of  representative  peers. 

A  fifth  group  of  members  is  made  up  of  the  Lords  of  Appeal  in 
Ordinary,  who  differ  from  other  peers  in  that  their  seats  are  not 
hereditary.  One  of  the  functions  of  the  House  of  Lords  is  to 
serve  as  a  high  court  of  appeal.  It  is,  therefore,  desirable  that 
the  body  shall  contain  at  least  a  few  able  jurists,  and,  further, 
that  business  of  a  judicial  nature  shall  be  transacted  largely 
by  this  corps  of  experts.  In  1876  an  Appellate  Jurisdiction 
Act  was  passed  authorizing  the  appointment  of  two  (subse- 
quently increased  to  four,  and  still  later  to  six)  "  law  lords  " 
with  the  title  of  baron  ;  and  by  legislation  of  1887  the  tenure  of 
these  members,  hitherto  conditioned  upon  their  continued  exer- 
cise of  judicial  functions,  was  made  perpetual  for  life.2  At 
present  these  justices,  sitting  under  the  presidency  of  the  Lord 
Chancellor,  form,  in  reality,  the  supreme  tribunal  of  the  realm. 
Three  constitute  a  quorum  for  the  transaction  of  judicial  business ; 
and  although  other  legal-minded  members  of  the  chamber  may 
participate,  and  technically  every  member  has  a  right  to  do  so, 
in  most  instances  this  inner  circle  discharges  the  judicial  func- 
tion quite  alone.3 

Finally,  there  are  the  ecclesiastical  members  —  not  peers, 
but  "  lords  spiritual.'1  In  the  fifteenth  century  the  lords  spiritual 
outnumbered  the  lords  temporal;  but  upon  the  dissolution  of 
the  monasteries  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII,  resulting  in  the 
disappearance  of  the  abbots,  the  spiritual  contingent  became  a 
minority.  At  the  present  day  the  number  of  ecclesiastical 
members  is  restricted  by  statute  to  26.  Scotland,  whose  Estab- 
lished Church  is  the  Presbyterian,  has  none.  Between  1801  and 
1869  Ireland  had  four,  but  since  the  disestablishment  of  the 
Church  in  that, island  in- 1869  it  has  had  none.  In  England 
five  ecclesiastics  are,  by  statute,  entitled  to  seats,  i.e.,  the  arch- 

1  Lord  Palmerston,  for  example,  was  an  Irish  peer,  but  sat  in  the  House  of 
Commons. 

2  The  "law  lords"  include  also  all  hereditary  peers  who  have  held  certain  high 
judicial  offices.  There  are  usually  a  dozen  or  more  of  them,  in  addition  to  the  lords 
of  appeal. 

3  See  p.  218.  In  1856  the  desire  to  strengthen  the  judicial  element  in  the  House 
of  Lords  precipitated  a  notable  controversy  over  the  power  of  the  crown  to  create 
life  peerages.  On  the  advice  of  her  ministers.  Queen  Victoria  conferred  upon  a 
distinguished  judge,  Sir  James  Parke,  a  patent  as  Baron  Wensleydale  for  life. 
There  were  some  precedents,  but  none  later  than  the  reign  of  Henry  VI ;  and  the 
House  of  Lords,  maintaining  that  the  right  had  lapsed  and  that  the  peerage  had 
become  entirely  hereditary,  refused  to  admit  Baron  Wensleydale  until  his  patent 
was  so  modified  as  to  put  his  peerage  on  that  basis. 


144  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

»ps  of  Canterbury  and  York  and  the  bishops  of  London, 
Durham,  and  Winchester.  Among  the  remaining  bishops,  the 
law  allows  seats  to  twenty  one,  in  the  order  of  seniority  I  l;<  re 
are  always,  therefore,  some  English  bishops  who  are  ool  mem- 
bers of  the  chamber.1  All  ecclesiastical  members  retain  their 
seats  during  tenure  of  their  sees,  but  do  not,  of  course,  transmit 
their  rights  to  their  heirs,  nor,  necessarily,  save  in  the  case  of  the 
five  mentioned,  to  their  successors  in  office.  Bishops  and  arch- 
bishops are  elected,  nominally,  by  the  dean  and  chapter  of  the 
diocese;  but  when  a  vacancy  arises  the  sovereign  transmits  a 
conge  d'elire  containing  the  name  of  the  person  to  be  elected,  so 
that,  practically,  appointment  is  made  by  the  king,  acting  under 
the  advice  of  the  prime  minister.  Bishoprics  are  created  by  act 
of  Parliament.2 

The  total  membership  of  the  upper  chamber  now  fluctuates 
around  675. :i  Formerly  it  was  decidedly  smaller;  indeed  its 
most  notable  growth  has  taken  place  within  the  past  hundred 
and  fifty  years.  During  the  reign  of  Henry  VII  there  were  never 
more  than  eighty  members,  of  whom  the  majority  were  ecclesi- 
astics. At  the  death  of  William  III  the  roll  of  the  upper  cham- 
ber bore  192  names.  At  the  death  of  Queen  Anne  the  number  was 
209 ;  at  that  of  George  I  it  was  216 ;  at  that  of  George  II,  229 ; 
at  that  of  George  III,  339 ;  at  that  of  George  IV,  396 ;  at  that  of 
William  IV,  456.  Between  1830  and  1898,  364  peerages  were 
conferred  —  222  under  Liberal  ministries  (covering,  in  the 
aggregate,  forty  years)  and  142  under  Conservative  govern- 
ments (covering  twenty-seven  years).  More  than  half  of  the 
peerages  of  to-day  have  been  created  within   the  past   sixty 

1  The  bishop  of  Sodor  and  Man  is  entitled  to  a  seat,  but  not  to  take  part  in  the 
chamber's  proceeding.  Hi-  status  lias  been  compared  to  that  of  a  territorial  dele- 
gate in' the  United  States  (Moran,  English  Government,  170).  The  act  of  1914 
which  disestablished  the  Church  in  Wales  and  Monmouthshire  provided  for  the 
withdrawal  of  the  four  bishops  of  that  section  from  the  House  of  Lords.  A<  tual 
disestablishment  was  postponed  until  after  the  war,  and  in  1919  a  supplementary 
Welsh  Church  Act  was  passed.  The  two  measures  took  effei  t  March  31,  IQ20, 
and  on  April  7  the  bi  t.  Asaph  was  elected  the  firsl  archbishop  of  the 
newly  created  province  of  Wales.  The  right  of  the  lour  Welsh  bishops  to  sit  in 
the  House  of  L'jrds  thereupon  ceased. 

2  On  the  composition  of  the  House  of  Lords  sec  Lowell,  Government  of  England, 
I,  Chap,  xxi;  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution.  L  Chap,  v;  May  and 
Holland,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  I,  Chap,  v;  Moran,  English  Govern- 
ment, Chap,  x ;  Low,  Governance  of  England,  ("hap.  xii ;  Courtney,  Working  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  Kingdom,  Chap,  xi;  and  Marriott,  English  Political  Institu- 
tions, Chaps,  vi-vii.  The  subject  is  treated  in  greater  detail  in  Pike,  Constitutional 
History  of  the  House  of  Lords,  especially  Chap.  xv. 

3  In  1919  there  were  3  peers  of  the  royal  blood,  2  archbishops,  19  dukes,  29 
marquises,  122  earls,  58  viscounts,  24  bishops,  371  barons,  16  Scottish  representa- 
tive peers,  28  Iri  ntative  peers  —  a  total  of  672. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  145 

years,  and  of  the  remainder  only  an  insignificant  portion  can  be 
termed  ancient. 

The  Breach  between  the  Lords  and  the  Nation.  —  For  up- 
wards of  a  century  the  "  mending  or  ending  "  of  the  House  of 
Lords  has  been  one  of  the  great  issues  of  British  politics.  The 
question  has  been  mainly  one  of  mending ;  for  —  outside  of  the 
Labor  party  in  recent  years  —  few  persons  have  seriously  advo- 
cated the  total  abolition  of  the* chamber,  and  their  influence 
has  been  slight.  The  indictments  that  have  been  brought  by 
the  critics  have  been  based  upon  the  predominantly  hereditary 
character  of  the  membership,  upon  the  meagerness  of  attendance 
at  the  sittings  and  the  small  interest  displayed  by  a  majority  of 
the  members,  and  upon  the  hurried  and  often  perfunctory  con- 
sideration given  public  measures.  Fundamentally,  however, 
the  attack  has  had  as  its  impetus  the  conviction  of  large  numbers 
of  people  that  the  chamber  as  now  constituted  stands  for  interests 
that  are  not  those  of  the  nation  at  large. 

Prior  to  the  parliamentary  reforms  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
the  House  of  Commons  was  hardly  more  representative  of  the 
people  than  was  the  upper  chamber.  Both  were  controlled  by 
the  landed  aristocracy,  and  between  the  two  there  was,  as  a 
rule, ,  substantial  accord.  After  1832,  however,  the  territorial 
interests,  while  still  powerful,  were  not  so  dominant  in  the 
Commons,  and  a  cleavage  between  the  Lords,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  Commons,  more  nearly  representative  of  the  mass  of 
the  nation,  on  the  other,  became  a  serious  factor  in  the  politics 
and  government  of  the  realm.  The  reform  measures  of  1867 
and  1884,  embodying  a  substantial  approach  to  manhood  suf- 
frage in  parliamentary  elections,  converted  the  House  of  Com- 
mons into  a  true  organ  of  democracy.  The  development  of  the 
cabinet  system  brought  the  working  executive,  likewise,  entirely 
within  the  range  of  public  control.  But  the  House  of  Lords 
underwent  no  corresponding  transformation.  It  remained,  and 
still  is,  an  inherently  and  necessarily  conservative  body,  repre- 
sentative, in  the  main,  of  the  interests  of  landed  property, 
opposed  to  changes  which  seem  to  menace  property  and  estab- 
lished order,  and  identified  with  all  the  forces  that  tend  to  per- 
petuate the  nobility  and  the  Anglican  Church  as  pillars  of  the 
state.  By  simply  standing  still  while  the  remaining  branches  of 
the  government  were  undergoing  democratization,  the  second 
chamber  became,  in  effect,  a  political  anomaly.1 

1  Dickinson,  Development  of  Parliament  during  the  Nineteenth  Century,  Chap. 
iii. 


146  U>\  ERNMENTS  OF   EI  ROPE 

Reform  Proposals  to  1909.  Projects  lor  the  reform  of  the 
House  of  Lords  were  not  unknown  before  1832,  but  it  has  been 
since  that  date,  and  more  particularly  during  tin  past  half- 
century,  that  the  question  has  been  agitated  most  vigorously. 
Some  of  the  plans  relate  to  the  composition  of  the  chamber, 
others  to  its  powers  and  functions,  and  still  others  to  both  of 
these  things.  As  to  composition,  the  suggestions  brought  for- 
ward most  commonly  look  to  a  reduction  of  the  aggregate  mem- 
bership, the  dropping  out  of  the  ecclesiastical  member-,  and  the 
substitution,  wholly  or  in  part,  of  specially  designated  numbers 
for  the  members  who  at  present  sit  by  hereditary  right.  In 
1869  a  bill  of  Lord  John  Russell  providing  for  the  gradual  infiltra- 
tion  of  life  peers  was  defeated,  and  in  the  same  year  a  project 
of  Earl  Grey,  and  in  1874  proposals  of  Lord  Rosebery  and  Lord 
Inchiquin,  came  to  naught.  The  rejection  by  the  Lords  of 
measures  supported  by  Gladstone's  government  in  1881-83 
brought  the  chamber  afresh  into  popular  disfavor,  and  in  1888 
the  second  Salisbury  ministry  introduced  two  reform  bills,  one 
providing  for  the  gradual  creation  of  fifty  life  peerages,  to  be 
conferred  upon  men  of  attainment  in  law,  diplomacy,  and 
administrative  service,  and  the  other  (popularly  known  as  the 
"  Black  Sheep  Bill  ")  providing  for  the  discontinuance  of  writs 
of  summons  to  undesirable  members  of  the  peerage.  The 
measures,  however,  were  withdrawn  after  their  second  reading, 
and  an  attempt  in  1889  to  revive  the  second  of  them  failed. 

Thenceforward,  until  1906,  the  issue  remained  in  the  back- 
ground. The  last  two  decades  of  the  nineteenth  century  form, 
none  the  less,  a  very  important  period  in  its  history ;  for  in  these 
years  a  change  took  place  in  the  position  occupied  by  the  upper 
chamber  which  lay  at  the  root  of  the  entire  controversy  of  1909 
and  the  succeeding  decade.  This  change  related  specifically 
to  the  balance  of  power  between  the  two  great  parties  in  the 
chamber.  Prior  to  1886,  both  of  the  leading  parties,  Liberal 
and  Conservative,  were  strongly  represented  in  the  chamber's 
membership.  The  Conservatives  were  more  numerous,  as  a 
rule,  but  not  greatly  so.  When  a  Conservative  ministry  was  in 
office  it  naturally  found  no  difficulty  in  obtaining  for  its  measures 
the  assent  of  the  Lords;  and  when  the  Liberal.-;  were  in  power 
they  could  usually  shape  their  program  in  such  a  way  as  to  ac- 
complish their  major  purposes. 

In  1886  the  Liberal  party  broke  asunder  on  Gladstone's  first 
Home  Rule  Bill.  Lnder  the  leadership  of  Jos<  ph  Chamberlain, 
most  of  the  party  members  who  were  of  the  "  governing  classes  " 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS     147 

seceded ;  and  after  a  period  of  independence,  under  the  name  of 
Liberal  Unionists,  they  gravitated  toward  the  Conservative 
party,  gradually  merged  with  it,  and  ended  not  only  by  impart- 
ing new  life  to  it,  but  by  giving  it  a  new  name,  i.e.,  Unionist.  In 
this  secession  were  involved  most  of  the  Liberal  members  of  the 
upper  chamber,  the  result  being  that  the  House  of  Lords  became 
an  almost  purely  Conservative  body ;  and  such  it  has  remained 
to  this  day.  In  a  total  membership,  in  1905,  of  over  six  hundred, 
there  were  only  forty-five  Liberals;  in  a  total,  in  1910,  of  six 
hundred  and  eighteen,  there  were  seventy-five.  Liberals ;  and 
this  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  between  1830  and  1910  more  than 
two  hundred  and  fifty  Liberal  peers  were  created.  The  irony 
of  the  Liberal  position  lay  in  the  fact  that,  no  matter  how  many 
peerages  might  be  bestowed  by  Liberal  governments  upon  men 
who  were  themselves  Liberals,  these  men,  or  at  all  events  their 
sons,  were  practically  certain  to  yield  to  the  subtle  influences 
of  the  upper  chamber  and  become  Conservatives.  Thus  the 
process  of  recruiting  the  Liberal  quota  was  continually  frus- 
trated, and  the  chamber  remained  a  bulwark  of  Conservatism. 
This  was  the  really  critical  aspect  of  the  problem  of  the  House  of 
Lords  as  it  presented  itself  after  1886.  It  was  not  so  much  the 
antiquated  structure  of  the  chamber,  not  so  much  its  lack  of 
touch  with  the  people,  not  so  much  its  disposition  to  resist 
change,  that  was  the  source  of  difficulty,  but  rather  the  fact 
that  it  was  dominated  absolutely  and  all  of  the  time  by  one  of 
the  two  great  parties  which  must  share  the  government  of  the 
nation.  When  the  Conservatives,  or  Unionists,  were  in  power 
■ —  as  they  were  during  most  of  the  period  1 886-1 906  —  there 
was  substantial  harmony  between  the  two  houses  of  Parliament 
and,  of  course,  between  Parliament  and  the  ministry.  But 
when  the  Liberals  were  in  power  they  had  to  reckon  with  an 
almost  solidly  hostile  House  of  Lords  and  were  fortunate  if  any 
considerable  portion  of  their  important  measures  successfully 
ran  the  gauntlet. 

During  the  Liberal  administration  of  1892-95  the  Lords 
rejected  Gladstone's  second  Home  Rule  Bill  and  defeated  or 
mutilated  several  other  measures;  but,  although  the  Liberal 
leaders  urged  that  the  will  of  the  people  had  been  frustrated,  the 
appeal  for  second  chamber  reform  failed  to  strike  fire.  With 
the  establishment  of  the  Campbell-Bannerman  ministry,  in 
December,  1905,  the  Liberals  entered  upon  what  proved  a  pro- 
longed tenure  of  power;  and  when,  in  1906,  the  Unionist  upper 
chamber  began  to  show  a  disposition  to  block  the  Liberal  pro- 


i48  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

gram  relating  to  educational  reform  and  a  number  of  other  im- 
portant matters,1  controversy  between  the  two  houses  assumed 
.i  more  serious  character  than  al  any  earlier  time.  By  an  ovei 
whelming  vote  the  House  of  Commons  adopted  a  resolution 
declaring  that,  in  order  to  give  effecl  to  the  will  of  the  people  as 
expressed  by  elected  representatives,  the  lower  chamber  ought 
to  be  iw  a  position  to  make  any  measure  law  within  the  life  oi  a 
single  parliament,  notwithstanding  adverse  action  taken  by  the 
Lords.2  A  bill  looking  to  the  reconstruction  of  the  upper  house 
was  withdrawn;  but  the  peers  themselves  were  put  on  the  de- 
fensive, and  in  k;o8  a  committee  of  their  body,  presided  over  by 
Lord  Rosebery  (a.  Liberal),  reported  a  scheme  of  reform  under 
which  (i)  possession  of  a  peerage  should  not  of  itself  entitle 
the  holder  to  a  seat  in  the  chamber  ;  (2)  the  whole  body  of  heredi- 
tary peers,  including  those  of  Scotland  and  Ireland,  should  ele<  t. 
for  1  ach  parliament,  two  hundred  of  their  number  to  sit  in  the 
upper  house  ;  (3)  hereditary  peers  who  had  occupied  certain  posts 
of  eminence  in  the  government  and  the  army  and  navy  should 
be  entitled  to  sit  without  election  ;  (4)  the  bishops  should  elect 
eight  representatives,  while  the  archbishops  should  sit  as  of 
right;  and  (5)  the  crown  should  be  empowered  to  summon  four 
life  peers  annually,  so  long  as  the  total  should  not  exceed  forty. 
This  scheme  failed  to  meet  the  Liberal  demand,  and  no  action 
was  taken  upon  it.  But  it  remained  an  important  basis  of  dis- 
cussion.3 

The  Lords  and  Money  Bills.  —  In  the  autumn  of  1909  the 
issue  was  reopened  in  an  unexpected  manner  by  the  flat  refusal 
of  the  upper  house  to  pass  the  Government's  Finance  Bill  (in 

1  Especially  legislation  abolishing  the  plural  vote  and  regulating  the  liquor 
traffic.  The  Lords  rejected  a  Plural  Voting  Bill  and  an  Aliens  Bill  in  1006,  a  Land 
Bill  in  1007,  and  a  Licensing  Bill  in  1908.  Fairness  requires  it  to  be  said 
that  during  tin-  first  session  of  1006  a  total  of  12]  bills  became  law,  that  only  four 
(including  the  Education  Bill)  passed  By  the  Commons  were  rejected  By  the  Lords, 
and  that  fifteen  passed  by  the  Lords  were  rejected  by  the  Commons.  The  propor- 
tions at  most  sessions  during  the  period  under  review  were  substantially  similar. 
But,  of  course,  measures  rejected  by  the  Lords  were  likely  to  In-  I  hose  in  which  the 
interest  of  the  Liberal  government  was  chiefly  centered. 

2Th<  organized  Labor  party  introduced  a  resolution  at  the  same  time  to 

ppei  Bou  e,  being  an  irresponsible  part  of  the  legislature  and 

of  necessity  representative  only  of  interests  opposed  1"  the  g(  in  ral  well-being,  is  a 

hindrance  to  national  progress  and  ought   to  be  abolished."      Labor    Year  Book 

(1016),  p.  323.      this  proposal  was  renewed  in  1010.     An  important  state  paper 

:    igo;  entitled  Reports  from  his  Majesty's  Representatives  Abroad 

mposition  and  Functions  of  the  Second  or  Upper  Chamber  in  Foreign 

States  (Cd.  342 

May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  III,  3^3  "349-     Forrefer- 
ence   on  th<  general  subject  of  the  reform' of  the  House  of  Lords  see  pp.  161-102. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  149 

which  were  incorporated  momentous  proposals  of  the  Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer,  Mr.  Lloyd  George,  concerning  the  readjust- 
ment of  national  taxation)  until  the  controversial  aspects  of  the 
budget  should  have  been  submitted  to  the  people  at  a  general 
election.1  This  act,  while  clearly  within  the  bounds  of  formal 
legality,  contravened  the  long  accepted  principle  of  the  absolute 
and  final  authority  of  the  popular  branch  in  matters  of  finance, 
and  most  Liberals  pronounced  it  revolutionary.  As  early  as 
1407  Henry  IV  accepted  the  principle  that  money  grants  should 
be  initiated  in  the  Commons,  assented  to  by  the  Lords,  and 
thereupon  reported  to  the  crown.  This  procedure  was  not 
always  observed,  but  after  the  two  houses  resumed  their  normal 
functions  following  the  Restoration  in  1660  the  right  of  the 
commoners  to  take  precedence  in  fiscal  business  was  forcefully 
and  continuously  asserted.  In  1671  the  Commons  resolved 
"  that  in  all  aids  given  to  the  king  by  the  Commons,  the  rate  or 
tax  ought  not  to  be  altered  by  the  Lords,"  and  a  resolution  of 
1678  reaffirmed  that  all  bills  granting  supplies  "  ought  to  begin 
with  the  Commons."  At  no  time  did  the  Lords  formally  sub- 
scribe to  these  principles ;  but,  by  refusing  to  consider  fiscal 
measures  originated  in  the  upper  chamber  and  to  accept  financial 
amendments  there  proposed,  the  Commons  successfully  enforced 
the  observance  of  them. 

The  rules  upon  which  the  Commons  insisted  have  been  sum- 
marized as  follows:  "  (1)  the  Lords  ought  not  to  initiate  any 
legislative  proposal  embodied  in  a  public  bill  and  imposing  a 
charge  on  the  people,  whether  by  taxes,  rates,  or  otherwise,  or 
regulating  the  administration  or  application  of  money  raised  by 
such  a  charge,  and  (2)  the  Lords  ought  not  to  amend  any  such 
legislative  proposal  by  altering  the  amount  of  a  charge,  or  its 
incidence,  duration,  mode  of  assessment,  levy  or  collection,  or 
the  administration  or  application  of  money  raised  by  such  a 
charge."  2  These  rules,  although  not  embodied  in  any  law  or 
standing  order,  were  for  centuries  so  generally  observed  that 
they  became,  for  all  practical  purposes,  a  part  of  the  constitutional 
system  —  conventional,  it  is  true,  but  none  the  less  binding. 
From  their  observance  it  resulted  (1)  that  the  upper  chamber 
was   never   consulted   about   the   annual   estimates,    about   the 

1  On  the  nature  of  the  Government's  finance  proposals  see  May  and  Holland, 
Constitutional  History  of  England,  III,  350-355;  G.  L.  Fox,  "The  British  Budget 
of  1909,"  in  Yale  Rev.,  Feb.,  1910;  D.  Lloyd  George,  The  People's  Budget  (Lon- 
don, 1909),  containing  extracts  from  the  Chancellor's  speeches  on  the  subject;  and 
B.  Mallet,  British  Budgets,  1887-88  to  1912-13  (New  York,  1914). 

2  Ilbert,  Parliament,  205. 


ISO  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

amounts  of  money  to  I"-  raised,  or  about  the  purposes  to  which 
these  amounts  should  be  appropriated;  (2)  that  proposals  of 
taxation  came  before  it  only  in  matured  form  and  under  circum- 
stances which  discouraged  criticism;  and  (3)  that,  since  the 
policy  of  the  executive  is  controlled  largely  through  the  medium 
of  the  power  of  the  purse,  the  upper  house  practically  lost  the 
means  of  exercising  such  control.  In  i860  the  Lords,  as  has 
been  mentioned,  made  bold  to  reject  a  bill  for  the  repeal  of  the 
duties  on  paper ;  but  the  Commons  vigorously  reaffirmed  its 
preeminence  in  finance,  and  the  next  year  the  repeal  of  the  paper 
duties  was  incorporated  in  the  annual  budget  and  forced  through. 
Thereafter  it  became  the  practice  to  include  all  proposal^  of 
taxation  in  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  great  revenue  bills 
passed  each  year,  with  the  effect,  of  course,  of  depriving  the 
Lords  of  the  opportunity  to  defeat  a  proposal  of  the  kind  save 
by  rejecting  the  whole  of  the  measure  of  which  it  formed  a 
part.1 

The  Finance  Bill  of  1909  and  the  Asquith  Resolutions.  —  The 
rejection  of  the  Finance  Bill  in  1909,  following  as  it  did  the 
defeat  of  other  important  measures  which  the  Liberal  majority 
in  the  Commons  had  approved,  raised  in  an  acute  form  the 
question  of  the  actual  power  of  the  upper  chamber  over  money 
bills  and  precipitated  a  crisis  in  the  relations  of  the  two  houses. 
On  the  one  hand,  the  House  of  Commons  adopted,  by  a  vote  of 
349  to  134,  a  resolution  to  the  effect  that  "  the  action  of  the  House 
of  Lords  in  refusing  to  pass  into  law  the  provision  made  by  the 
House  of  Commons  for  the  finances  of  the  year  is  a  breach  of  the 
constitution,  and  a  usurpation  of  the  privileges  of  the  House 
of  Commons";  and,  on  the  other,  the  Asquith  ministry  came 
instantly  to  the  decision  that  the  situation  demanded  an  appeal 
to  the  country.  In  January,  1910,  a  general  election  took  place, 
with  the  result  that  the  Government  was  continued  in  power, 
although  with  a  reduced  majority;  and  at  the  convening  of  the 
new  parliament,  in  February,  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  prom- 
ised that  proposals  would  speedily  be  submitted  "  to  define  the 
relations  between  the  houses  of  Parliament,  so  as  to  secure  the 
undivided  authority  of  the  House  of  Commons  over  finance, 
and  its  predominance  in  legislation."  The  Finance  Bill  of  the 
year  was  reintroduced  and  this  time  successfully  carried  through  ; 2 

1  See  p.  191. 

2  The  Finance  Bill  passed  its  third  reading  in  the  House  of  Commons  April  27, 
was  passed  in  the  House  of  Lords  April  28,  without  division,  and  received  the  royal 
assent  April  29. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  151 

but  in  advance  of  its  reappearance  the  premier  laid  before  the 
House  of  Commons  a  series  of  resolutions  to  the  following  effect : 
(1)  that  the  House  of  Lords  should  be  disabled  by  law  from 
rejecting  or  amending  a  money  bill ;  (2)  that  the  power  of  the 
chamber  to  veto  other  bills  should  be  restricted  by  law;  and 
(3)  that  the  duration  of  a  parliament  should  be  limited  to  a  maxi- 
mum period  of  five  years.  During  the  debate  on  these  resolu- 
tions it  was  made  clear  that  the  Government  did  not  desire  the 
abolition  of  the  House  of  Lords,  but  wished  merely  to  have  the 
chamber's  legislative  power  legally  restricted  to  consultation, 
revision,  and,  subject  to  proper  safeguards,  delay.  The  reso- 
lutions were  adopted  by  substantial  majorities,1  and  a  Govern- 
ment bill  drawn  on  these  lines  was  forthwith  introduced. 

Meanwhile,  Lord  Rosebery  offered  in  the  House  of  Lords  a 
series  of  resolutions,  as  follows:  (1)  that  a  strong  and  efficient 
second  chamber  is  not  merely  a  part  of  the  British  constitution 
but  is  necessary  to  the  well-being  of  the  state  and  the  balance  of 
Parliament ;  (2)  that  such  a  chamber  may  best  be  obtained  by 
the  reform  and  reconstitution  of  the  House  of  Lords ;  and  (3)  that 
a  necessary  preliminary  to  such  a  reform  and  reconstitution  is 
the  acceptance  of  the  principle  that  the  possession  of  a  peerage 
shall  no  longer  of  itself  confer  the  right  to  sit  and  vote  in  the 
House.  The  first  two  of  these  resolutions  were  agreed  to  without 
division;  the  third,  although  vigorously  opposed,  was  carried 
by  a  vote  of  175  to  17. 

The  Unionists  and  the  Referendum.  —  The  death  of  the 
king,  Edward  VII,  halted  consideration  of  the  subject,  ^  and 
through  the  summer  of  19 10  hope  centered  ina"  constitutional 
conference  "  participated  in  by  eight  representatives  of  the  two 
houses  and  of  the  two  principal  parties.  Twenty-one  meetings, 
in  all,  were  held,  but  effort  to  reach  an  agreement  was  futile,  and 
at  the  reassembling  of  Parliament,  November  15,  the  problem 
was  thrown  back  for  solution  upon  the  houses  and  the  country. 
The  Government's  Parliament  Bill  having  been  presented  in 
the  second  chamber  (November  21),  Lord  Lansdowne,  leader  of 
the  Opposition,  came  forward  with  a  fresh  series  oi  resolutions 
designed  to  clarify  the  Unionist  position  in  anticipation  of  the 
elections  which  were  announced  for  the  ensuing  month.  They  de- 
clared that  the  House  of  Lords  was  "  prepared  to  forego  its  con- 
stitutional right  to  reject  or  amend  money  bills  which  are  purely 
financial  in  character,"  provided  (1)  that  adequate  provision  was 

1  The  votes  on  the  three  resolutions  were,  respectively,  339  to  237,  351  to  246,  and 
334  to  236. 


[S2  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

made  against  tacking,  (2)  that  questions  as  to  whether  a  bill 
or   any    provision    thereof  was  "purely   financial " 'should  be 

referred  to  a  joint  committee  of  the  two  houses  (the  Speaker  of 
the  Commons  presiding  and  having  a  casting  vote),  and  (3)  that 
a  bill  decided  by  such  a  committee  to  he  not  purely  financial 
should  he  deall  with  in  a  joint  sitting  of  the  two  houses.  As  to 
all  measures  other  than  those  thus  provided  for.  the  resolutions 
declared  that  "  if  a  difference  arises  between  the  two  houses  with 
regard  to  any  bill  other  than  a  money  bill  in  two  successive 
sessions,  and  with  an  interval  of  not  less  than  one  year,  and  such 
difference  cannot  be  adjusted  by  any  other  means,  it  shall  be 
settled  in  a  joint  sitting  composed  of  members  of  the  two  houses  ; 
provided  that  if  the  difference  relates  to  a  matter  which  is  of 
great  gravity,  and  has  not  been  adequately  submitted  for  the 
judgment  of  the  people,  it  shall  not  be  referred  to  the  joint  sit- 
ting, but  shall  be  submitted  for  decision  to  the  electors  by  refer- 
endum." 

These  resolutions  were  hardly  less  drastic  than  the  terms  of 
the  Government's  bill.  They  looked  to  the  total  abolition  of  the 
absolute  veto  of  the  second  chamber,  and  they  might  well  involve 
the  intrusting  of  interests  which  the  peers  held  dear  to  the  haz- 
ards of  a  nation-wide  referendum.1  None  the  less,  they  were 
agreed  to  wdthout  division;  and,  both  parties  having  in  effect 
pronounced  existing  arrangements  unsatisfactory,  the  electorate 
was  asked  to  choose  between  the  two  substitutes  thus  pro- 
posed . 

Enactment  of  the  Parliament  Bill  (191 1). — The  appeal  to  the 
country,  in  December,  yielded  results  almost  identical  with 
those  of  the  election  of  the  previous  January.  The  Government 
secured  a  majority  of  127,  and  in  the  new  House  of  Commons, 
which  met  on  February  6,  the  Parliament  Bill  was  reintroduced 
without  alteration.  On  the  ground  that  the  measure  had  been 
submitted  to  the  people  as  a  clear  issue,  and  had  been  approved, 
the  ministry  asked  its  prompt  enactment  by  the  two  houses. 
On  May  15  the  bill  passed  its  third  reading  in  the  Commons  by 
a  vote  of  362  to  241.  During  the  committee  stage  upwards  of  a 
thousand  amendments  were  suggested.  But  the  Government 
stood  firm  for  the  instrument  as  originally  drawn,  and  while  a  few 
minor  changes  were  made,  the  measure  went  through  untouched 
in  its  essentials. 

Meanwhile  Lord  Lansdowne  introduced  in  the  upper  chamber 

1  On  the  growth  of  the  idea  of  the  referendum  see  II.  W.  Horwill,  "The  Referen- 
dum in  Great  Britain,"  in  Polit.  Sci.  Quar.,  Sept.,  191 1. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  153 

a  comprehensive  bill  embodying  the  program  of  reconstruction 
to  which  the  more  moderate  elements  in  that  chamber  were 
ready,  under  the  circumstances,  to  subscribe.  The  Lansdowne 
Reconstruction  Bill  proposed,  at  the  outset,  a  reduction  of  the 
membership  of  the  chamber  to  350.  Princes  of  the  blood  and  the 
two  archbishops  should  retain  membership,  but  the  number  of 
bishops  entitled  to  sit  should  be  reduced  to  five,  to  be  chosen 
triennially  by  the  whole  body  of  higher  prelates  upon  the  prin- 
ciple of  proportional  representation.  The  remainder  of  the 
membership  should  consist  of  "  lords  of  Parliament,"  as  follows: 
(1)  100  elected  from  the  peers  possessing  carefully  stipulated 
qualifications,  for  a  term  of  twelve  years,  on  the  principle  of 
proportional  representation,  by  the  whole  body  of  hereditary 
peers  (including  the  Scottish  and  Irish),  one  fourth  of  the  num- 
ber retiring  triennially;  (2)  120  members  chosen  by  electoral 
colleges  composed  of  members  of  the  House  of  Commons  divided 
for  the  purpose  into  regional  groups,  each  returning  from  three  to 
twelve,  under  conditions  of  tenure  similar  to  those  prevailing 
in  the  first  class;  and  (3)  100  appointed,  from  the  peerage  or 
outside,  by  the  crown  on  nomination  by  the  premier,  with  regard 
to  the  strength  of  parties  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  under 
the  before-mentioned  conditions  of  tenure.  It  was  stipulated, 
farther,  that  peers  not  sitting  in  the  House  of  Lords  should  be 
eligible  for  election  to  the  House  of  Commons,  and  that,  except 
in  event  of  the  "  indispensable  "  elevation  of  a  cabinet  minister 
or  ex-minister  to  the  peerage,  it  should  be  unlawful  for  the 
crown  to  confer  an  hereditary  peerage  upon  more  than  five 
persons  during  the  course  of  any  single  year. 

These  proposals,  it  will  be  observed,  related  exclusively  to 
the  composition  of  the  upper  chamber.  The  Liberal  leaders 
preferred  to  approach  the  problem  from  the  other  side  and  to 
establish  the  preponderance  of  the  Commons  by  restrictions 
upon  powers.  Lord  Lansdowne's  bill  —  sadly  characterized  by 
its  author  as  the  "  deathblow  to  the  House  of  Lords,  as  many 
of  us  have  known  it  for  so  long  "  —  came  too  late,  and  the  cham- 
ber, after  allowing  it  to  be  read  a  second  time  without  division, 
was  obliged  to  drop  it  for  the  Government's  measure.  On  July 
20  the  Parliament  Bill,  amended  to  exclude  from  its  operation 
legislation  affecting  the  constitution  and  other  matters  of  "  great 
gravity,"  was  adopted  without  division.  The  amendment  was 
objectionable  to  the  Liberals,  who,  relying  upon  an  understanding 
entered  into  with  the  king  during  the  previous  November  relative 
to  the  creation  of  peers  favorable  to  the  Government's  program, 


IS4  GOVERNMENTS  OF    El  ROPE 

let  it  be  understood  that  no  compromise  upon  essentials  could  be 
considered,1  Confronted  with  the  prospeel  of  a  wholesale 
"  swamping,"2  the  Opposition  Eel]  back  upon  the  policy  of  ab- 
stention ;  and,  although  a  considerable  number  of  "  last-ditcherB " 
held  out  to  the  end,  a  group  of  Unionists  sufficient  to  carry  the 
measure  joined  the  supporters  of  the  Government,  August  10, 
in  a  vote  not  to  insist  upon  the  Lords'  amendments  -which 
meant,  in  effect,  to  approve  the  bill  as  adopted  in  the  lower 
house.3     The  royal  assent  was  given  on  August  18. 

Provisions  of  the  Parliament  Act.  —  In  its  preamble  the 
Parliament  Act  promised  farther  legislation  to  define  both  the 
composition  and  the  powers  of  a  second  chamber  "  constituted 
on  a  popular  instead  of  an  hereditary  basis";  but  the  act  itself 
dealt  exclusively  with  the  powers  of  the  chamber  as  at  present 
constituted.  The  general  purport  of  the  measure  is  to  define 
the  conditions  under  which,  while  the  normal  methods  of  legis- 
lation remain  unchanged,  financial  bills  and  projects  of  general 
legislation  may,  nevertheless,  be  enacted  into  law  without  the 
concurrence  of  the  upper  house.  The  first  signal  provision  is 
that  a  public  bill  passed  by  the  House  of  Commons  and  certified 
by  the  Speaker  to  be,  within  the  terms  of  the  act,  a  "  money 
bill  "  shall,  unless  the  Commons  direct  to  the  contrary,  become 
an  act  of  Parliament  on  the  royal  assent  being  signified,  notwith- 
standing that  the  House  of  Lords  may  not  have  consented  to  the 
bill,  within  one  month  after  it  shall  have  been  sent  up  to  that 
house.  A  money  bill  is  defined  as  "  a  public  bill  which,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  Speaker,  contains  only  provisions  dealing  with 
all  or  any  of  the  following  subjects :  the  imposition,  repeal,  re- 
mission, alteration,  or  regulation  of  taxation ;  the  imposition 
for  the  payment  of  debt  or  other  financial  purposes  of  charges 
on  the  Consolidated  Fund,  or  on  money  provided  by  Parliament, 
or  the  variation  or  repeal  of  any  such  charges ;  supply ;  the  appro- 
priation, receipt,  custody,  issue  or  audit  of  accounts  of  public 
money ;  the  raising  or  guarantee  of  any  loan  or  the  payment 
thereof;  or  subordinate  matters  incidental  to  those  subjects  or 
any  of  them."     A  certificate  of  the  Speaker  on  this  subject  is 

1  When,  on  July  24,  Mr.  Asquith  rose  in  the  Commons  to  reply  to  the  Lords' 
amendments  such  confusion  ensued  that  for  the  first  time  in  generations,  save 
upon  one  occasion  in  1905,  the  Speaker  was  obliged  to  adjourn  a  sitting  on  account 
of  the  disorderly  conduct  of  members. 

"  Had  the  Unionists  held  out  to  the  end  as  a  body  it  might  have  been  necessary 
to  create  some  four  hundred  new  peer-  in  order  to  secure  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

3  The  final  vote  in  the  Lords  was  131  to  114.  The  Unionist  peers  who  voted  with 
the  Government  numbered  37.  F.  Dilnot,  The  Old  Order  Changeth  (London, 
191 1),  Chap.  xxi. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS     155 

conclusive  for  all  purposes ;  it  cannot  be  questioned  in  a  court 
of  law.1 

The  second  important  stipulation  is  that  any  other  public  bill 
(except  a  bill  to  confirm  a  provisional  order  or  to  extend  the 
maximum  duration  of  Parliament  beyond  five  years)  which  is 
passed  by  the  House  of  Commons  in  three  successive  sessions, 
whether  or  not  of  the  same  parliament,  and  which,  having  been 
sent  up  to  the  House  of  Lords  at  least  one  month,  in  each  case, 
before  the  close  of  the  session,  is  rejected  by  that  chamber  in 
each  of  those  sessions,  shall,  unless  the  House  of  Commons  direct 
to  the  contrary,  become  an  act  of  Parliament  on  the  royal  assent 
being  signified  thereto,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  House 
of  Lords  has  not  consented  to  the  bill.  It  is  required  that  at 
least  two  years  shall  have  elapsed  between  the  date  of  the  second 
reading  of  such  a  bill  (i.e.,  the  first  real  opportunity  for  its  dis- 
cussion) in  the  first  of  these  sessions  of  the  House  of  Commons 
and  the  final  passage  of  the  bill  in  the  third  of  the  sessions.  To 
come  within  the  provisions  of  the  act  the  measure  must  be,  at 
its  initial  and  its  final  appearances,  the  "  same  bill" ;  that  is,  it 
must  contain  no  alterations  save  such  as  are  made  necessary  by 
the  lapse  of  time.  A  bill  is  to  be  construed  as  "  rejected  "  by 
the  Lords  if  it  is  not  passed,  or  if  amendments  are  introduced  to 
which  the  House  of  Commons  does  not  agree,  or  which  the 
House  of  Commons  does  not  itself  suggest  to  the  House  of  Lords 
at  the  second  or  third  passage  of  the  bill.  Finally,  the  act 
sought  to  increase  the  frequency  of  national  elections  by  reducing 
the  maximum  life  of  a  parliament  from  seven  to  five  years.2 

Effects  of  the  Act.  —  The  general  effect  of  the  measure  was  to 
terminate  the  coordinate  and  independent  authority  which,  in 
law  if  not  in  fact,  the  British  upper  chamber  has  enjoyed  through 
the  centuries.  Within  the  domain  of  legislation,  it  is  true,  the 
Lords  may  yet  exercise  much  influence.  Every  project  of  finance 
and  of  legislation  which  it  is  proposed  to  enact  into  law  must  be 
submitted  to  the  chamber,  and  there  is  still  nothing  save  custom 
to  prevent  the  introduction  of  even  the  most  important  of  non- 
financial  measures  first  of  all  in  that  house.     But  a  single  pres- 

1  An  incidental  effect  of  the  act  is  to  exalt  the  power  and  importance  of  the 
Speaker,  although  it  should  be  observed  that  the  Speaker  had  long  been  accustomed 
to  state  at  the  introduction  of  a  public  bill  whether  in  his  judgment  the  rights  or 
privileges  claimed  by  the  House  of  Commons  in  respect  to  finance  had  been  infringed. 
If  he  were  of  the  opinion  that  there  had  been  infringement,  it  remained  for  the 
House  to  determine  whether  it  would  insist  upon  or  waive  its  privilege.  Ilbert, 
Parliament,  207. 

2  On  this  feature  of  the  act  see  J.  G.  Randall,  "  Frequency  and  Duration  of  Parlia- 
ments," in  Amer.  Polit.  Sci.  Rev.,  Nov.,  1916,  especially  pp.  674-679. 


IS6  GOVERNMENTS  01    EUROPE 

dilation  of  any  money  bill  fulfills  the  legal  requiremenl  and 
insures  that  the  measure  will  become  law.  For  such  a  bill  will 
not  be  presented  until  it  has  been  passed  by  the  Commons,  and, 
emanating  from  the  cabinet,  it  will  notbe  introduced  in  that  cham- 
ber  until  the  assent  of  the  crown  Is  assured.  The  upper  house  is 
allowed  one  month  in  which  to  approve  or  to  reject,  hut,  so  far 
as  the  future  of  the  bill  is  concerned,  the  result  is  the  same  in  any 
case.  Upon  ordinary  legislation  the  House  of  Lords  still  has  a 
veto  — a  veto,  however,  which  is  no  longer  absolute,  but  only 
suspensive.  The  conditions  required  for  the  enactment  of  non- 
fiscal  legislation  without  the  concurrence  of  the  Lords  are  not 
easy  to  bring  about,  but  their  realization  is  not  at  all  an  impos- 
sibility.1 A  Welsh  Disestablishment  Bill  became  law  in  this 
manner,  in  1014;  and  several  other  measures — including  a 
Plural  Voting  Bill 2  —  were  in  a  fair  way  to  do  so  when  the 
Great  War  caused  a  cessation  of  ordinary  legislative  activity. 
By  the  repeated  rejection  of  proposed  measures  the  Lords  may 
influence  public  sentiment  or  otherwise  bring  about  a  change 
of  circumstances,  and  thus  compass  the  defeat  of  the  original 
intent  of  the  Commons;  and  this  is  the  more  possible  since  a 
minimum  period  of  two  years  is  required  to  elapse  before  a  non- 
fiscal  measure  can  be  carried  over  the  Lords'  veto.  But  the 
continuity  of  political  alignments  and  of  legislative  policy  is 
normally  such  that  the  remarkable  predominance  which  has 
been  given  the  popular  branch  must  mean,  in  effect,  little  less 
than  absolute  law-making  authority.3 

The  Question  of  Farther  Reforms :  the  "  Bryce  Report." 
As  has  been  stated,  the  Parliament  Act  promised  additional 
legislation  which  should  define  both  the  composition  and  the 
powers  of  a  second  chamber  constituted  on  a  popular,  instead 
of  an  hereditary,  basis.  During  the  three  years  that  elapsed 
before  the  outbreak  of  the  Great  War  the  Liberal  Government 
was  so  preoccupied  with  the  Irish  question  and  other  urgent 
issues  that  it  did  not  get  round  to  the  resumption  of  its  program 
of  upper  chamber  reform.  The  war  period  was  itself,  of  course, 
not  a  time  in  which  this  subject  could  be  pressed.  Hence,  no 
farther  changes  have  been  made.  Discussion  of  the  subject, 
however,  has  gone  steadily  forward,  and  various  more  or  less 
ingenious  solutions  have  been  offered.     The  most  notable  con- 

1  Seep.  155. 

2  See  p.  128. 

3E.  Jenks,  "The  Parliament  Act  and  the  British  Constitution,"  in  Col.  Law 
Rev.,  Mar.,  19 13. 


TARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  157 

tribution  to  the  discussion  since  the  legislation  of  191 1  is  the 
report  of  a  government  committee  known  officially  as  the  Con- 
ference on  the  Reform  of  the  Second  Chamber,  of  which  Lord 
Bryce  was  chairman.  This  committee  was  appointed  in  August, 
191 7,  at  a  time  when  the  immediate  democratization  of  the 
House  of  Commons  had  been  determined  upon,  and  when  it 
was  felt  that  if  England  was  to  make  her  political  institutions 
square  with  her  professions  in  a  war  of  democracy  against  autoc- 
racy she  must  proceed  also  to  the  popularization  of  the  upper 
chamber.  The  committee  made  a  careful  survey  of  the  subject, 
and,  in  April,  1918,  submitted  its  conclusions,  in  the  form  of  a 
letter  from  the  chairman  to  the  prime  minister.1 

The  report  began  by  emphasizing  the  difficulties  of  the  prob- 
lem, especially  of  adapting  an  ancient  institution  to  new  ideas 
and  new  needs,  of  finding  a  basis  for  a  second  chamber  that 
would  be  different  in  composition  and  type  from  the  popular 
assembly,  and  of  adjusting  the  powers  and  functions  of  the  two 
parliamentary  bodies.  As  to  functions,  the  committee  was 
agreed  that  the  second  chamber  ought  not  to  have  equal  powers 
with  the  House  of  Commons,  nor  aim  at  becoming  a  rival  of  that 
body,  and  that,  in  particular,  it  ought  not  to  have  the  power  of 
making  and  overturning  ministries  or  to  enjoy  equal  rights  in 
dealing  with  finance.  As  to  composition,  there  was  similar  agree- 
ment (1)  that  all  possible  precautions  ought  to  be  taken  to 
secure  that  in  a  reformed  second  chamber  no  one  set  of  political 
opinions  should  be  likely  to  have  "  a  marked  and  permanent 
predominance  "  (such  as  the  Unionist  doctrines  have  long 
enjoyed  in  the  present  chamber) ;  (2)  that  the  body  should  be 
so  made  up  that  it  would  aim  at  ascertaining  the  mind  and  views 
of  the  nation  as  a  whole  and  should  recognize  its  responsibility 
to  the  people  as  a  whole;  and  (3)  that  certain  elements  ought 
especially  to  have  a  place  in  it,  i.e.,  persons  of  experience  in  vari- 
ous forms  of  public  work,  persons  who,  while  likely  to  serve 
efficiently,  have  not  the  physical  vigor  requisite  for  a  career  in 
the  House  of  Commons,  and  persons  who  are  not  strong  partisans. 

Various  modes  of  making  up  a  second  chamber  which  would 
meet  these  requirements  were  duly  considered.  Popular  elec- 
tion on  the  basis  of  a  property  qualification  was  rejected  as  too 
drastic  and  "  not  suitable  to  modern  conditions."  Selection 
of  some  or  all  of  the  members  so  as  to  represent  different  interests 
and  professions,  on  the  analogy  of  the  Italian  Senate,  was  held 
to  be  impracticable  because  of  the  difficulty  of  allotting  repre- 

1  Report  of  the  Conference  on  the  Reform  of  the  Second  Chamber.     Cd.  9038.     1918. 


1 5S  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

sentatives  to  the  various  groups.1  Nomination  by  the  sovereign, 
acting  through  the  ministers,  was  discarded  because  the  power 
would  be  likely  to  be  used  for  party  ends.  Selection  by  a  joint 
standing  committee  of  the  two  houses  found  favor,  yet  was 
thought  by  the  majority  to  be  not  a  sufficiently  broad  basis  of 
choice.  Election  by  the  House  of  Commons,  which  would  be 
tantamount  to  indirect  popular  election,  was  enthusiastically 
supported,  yet  was  felt  to  have  some  disadvantages. 

The  plan  that  was  recommended  combined  features  of  the 
last  two  schemes.  In  the  first  place,  the  total  membership  of 
the  chamber  should  be  reduced  by  almost  half,  being  fixed  at 
327.  In  the  second  place,  these  members  should  be  thrown 
into  two  classes :  (1)  246,  to  be  elected  by  the  members  of  the 
House  of  Commons  grouped  in  thirteen  regional  divisions,  the 
commo-jrs  from  each  division  electing  the  quota  in  the  upper 
chamber  to  which  their  area  was  entitled,  and  (2)  81,  to  be 
chosen  from  the  whole  body  of  peers  by  a  joint  committee  of  the 
two  houses.  All  members  should  be  elected  for  twelve-year 
terms,  and  one  third  of  their  number  should  retire  quadrennially. 
Finally,  not  more  than  one  third  of  the  major  portion  of  the 
chamber  (i.e.,  the  246)  should  be  elected  by  any  single  House 
of  Commons ;  hence,  special  arrangements  should  be  made  to 
put  the  system  into  operation  by  degrees. 

Desirable  Features  of  a  Reform.  —  It  is  safe  to  assume  that 
the  question  of  second-chamber  reform  will  soon  come  again 
into  the  field  of  practical  politics.  Even  the  Unionists,  who 
with  few  exceptions  opposed  the  Parliament  Act,  may  be  regarded 
as  committed  to  the  general  idea ;  the  real  issue  will  be  the 
method.  Some  men  in  all  parties  are  of  the  opinion  that,  as 
John  Bright  once  declared,  "  a  hereditary  House  of  Lords  is  not 
and  cannot  be  perpetual  in  a  free  country."  None  the  less,  it  is 
recognized  that  the  chamber  as  at  present  constituted  contains 
a  large  number  of  conscientious,  eminent,  and  able  men ;  that 
upon  many  occasions  it  has  imposed  a  wholesome  check  upon  the 
popular  branch ;  that  it  already  possesses  some  representative 
character ;  and  that  sometimes  it  has  interpreted  the  will  of  the 
nation  more  correctly  than  has  the  popular  branch  itself.  The 
most  reasonable  program  of  reform  would  seem  to  be,  not  a  total 

1  It  may  be  noted  that  during  the  discussions  of  1010  Lord  Wemyss  proposed 
that  the  representative  character  of  the  chamber  be  given  emphasis  by  the  admission 
of  three  members  designated  by  each  of  some  twenty-one  commercial,  professional, 
and  educational  societies  of  the  kingdom,  such  as  the  Royal  Academy  of  Arts,  the 
Society  of  Engineers,  the  Shipping  Federation,  and  the  Royal  Institute  of  British 
Architects. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS     159 

reconstitution  of  the  upper  chamber  upon  a  "  popular  "  basis, 
but  (i)  the  adoption  of  the  Rosebery  principle  that  the  possession 
of  a  peerage  shall  not  of  itself  entitle  the  possessor  to  sit,  (2)  the 
admission  to  membership  of  a  considerable  number  of  persons 
representative  of,  and  selected  by,  the  whole  body  of  hereditary 
peers,  and  (3)  the  introduction  of  a  substantial  quota  of  life 
or  fixed-term  members,  appointed  or  elected  for  their  legal 
attainments,  political  experience,  and  other  qualities  of  fitness 
and  eminence.  A  body  so  constituted  would  still  incline  strongly 
to  conservatism ;  probably  a  Liberal  ministry  would  still  have 
to  face  in  it  a  Unionist  majority.  But  opposition  would  be  less 
unyielding  and  less  irresponsible  than  hitherto.;  and  one  may 
believe  that,  coupled  with  the  changes  wrought  in  powers  by  the 
Parliament  Act,  such  an  alteration  would  meet  all  reasonable 
demands. 

The  chief  difficulty  of  the  plan  would  be  to  determine  the 
basis  on  which  the  life  or  fixed-term  members  should  be  chosen. 
In  a  country  organized,  as  is  the  United  States,  on  a  federal 
basis,  it  is  easy  to  make  up  a  second  chamber  that  will  not  be  a 
duplicate  of  the  first;  the  people  in  small  groups  can  be  repre- 
sented directly  in  the  lower  house  and  the  federated  states,  as 
such,  in  the  upper.  England  is  not  a  federal  state,  and  no  logical 
areas  for  upper  chamber  representation  exist.  But,  as  was  the 
opinion  of  the  Bryce  commission,  it  is  not  inconceivable  that 
they  might  be  created  —  if,  indeed,  the  old  historic  counties,  or 
combinations  of  them,  could  not  be  made  to  serve.  Great 
advantages  would  arise  from  a  system  under  which  a  considerable 
number  of  members  should  be  chosen  to  represent  important 
special  groups  or  interests,  including  the  great  professions.  The 
universities,  the  learned  societies,  the  principal  Nonconformist 
bodies,  the  chambers  of  commerce,  the  manufacturers'  associa- 
tions, the  bankers,  the  medical  profession,  and  even  the  trade 
unions,  come  readily  to  mind  in  this  connection.1 

Prospective  Relations  of  the  Two  Houses.  —  A  body  made 
up  on  the  lines  thus  indicated  would  undoubtedly  be  respec- 
table, capable,  and  vigorous ;  and  this  raises  a  new  question,  of 
which  the  reformers  have  not  been  unmindful.  Would  not 
such  an  upper  chamber  justly  claim  equality  of  rights  and 
powers  with  the  popular  house?     Could  it  be  kept  on  the  sub- 

1  For  interesting  discussions  of  this  principle  see  L.  Bouvier,  La  representation 
des  interets  professionnels  dans  les  assemblies  politiques  (Paris,  1014),  and  G.  Carriere, 
La  representation  des  interSts  ct  Vimportanee  des  elements  professionnels  dans  revolu- 
tion et  le  gouverncment  des  pcuples  (Paris,  191 7). 


k,o  GOVERNMEN  IS  OF    EUROPE 

ordinate  plane  to  which  recent  legislation  has  lowered  the  House 
of  Lords?  In  other  words,  would  not  the  application  of  the 
representative  principle  to  the  chamber  lead  to  an  undesired 
revival  of  the  authority  of  that  body  ai  the  expense  of  the  House 
of  Commons?  Some  years  ago  Mr.  Balfour,  in  a  notable  ad- 
dress, warned  the  lower  chamber  that  this  was  what  would  hap- 
pen; and  other  voices  have  been  raised,  in  both  of  the  great 
parties,  to  the  same  effect. 

The   apprehension  seems,   however,   groundless.      In   the  first 
place,    no   legal   alteration   of   the   composition   or   status  of   the 
second  chamber  can  take  place  save  by  an  act  of  Parliament; 
and  it  is  inconceivable  that  the  House  of  Commons  would  ever 
approve  a  measure  which  restricted  its  ultimate  control  in,  at 
all  events,  the  two  great  fields  of  finance  and  administration. 
In  the  second  place,  experience  shows  that  in  the  long  run  an  up- 
per chamber,  no  matter  what  its  basis,  cannot  maintain  a  parity 
of  power  and  influence  with  the  lower  chamber  under  a  system 
of  responsible,  i.e.,  cabinet,  government.     The  constitution  of 
France  seeks  to  make  the  cabinet  responsible  to  both  the  Senate 
and  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  and  the  Senate  is  an  exceptionally 
capable  and  energetic  body.1     Yet  the   Chamber  of  Deputies 
enjoys  a  substantial  priority  in  the  actual  control  of  national 
affairs.     The    framers   of    the    Australian   constitution   deliber- 
ately provided  for  a  popularly  elected  upper  house,  with  a  view 
to  making  it  an  effective  counterpoise  to  the  federal  House  of 
Representatives.     But    the    idea    failed.     To-day    a    Common- 
wealth Government  recognizes  the  supremacy  of  the  lower  cham- 
ber only,  and  the  Senate  is  a  mere  debating  society.2     In  Canada 
the  Senate,  likewise,  is  conspicuously  weak.3     The  outcome  could 
hardly  be  otherwise  in  England .    It  will  not  do  to  say  with  a  recent 
writer  that  the  cabinet  system  "  is  fatal  to  a  bicameral  legisla- 
ture."    As  is  proved  by  France,  there  is  a  legitimate  and  useful 
place  for  a  second  chamber  in  a  cabinet  system  of  government ; 
and  most  of  the  arguments  that  support  a  bicameral  legislature 
in  the  United  States  are  equally  applicable  in  England.     But  it 
cannot  be  denied  that,  as  the  above-mentioned  writer  goes  on  to 
.  .  "  whatever  the  mode  of  selection  or  however  able  its  per- 
sonnel,  the  upper  chamber  will   continue  to  play  but  a  sub- 
ordinate position  in  political  life  so  long  as  the  principle  of  the 

1  Sec  p.    1  ii .  ,       T 

\.   I'..   Keith,  Responsible- Government  in  the  Dotntmons  (Oxford,   1912,,  11, 

3  E.  Porritt,  Evolution  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada  (Yonkers,  1918),  Chap.  m. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS     161 

responsibility  of  the  ministry  to  the  House  of  Commons  en- 
dures." '  As  an  English  authority  has  said,  "  a  House  of  Com- 
mons, with  the  majority  of  the  electorate  behind  it,  could  not 
be  bitted  and  bridled  by  the  Peers.  .  .  .  The  Lords  cannot 
prevent  reform,  or  even  revolution,  if  the  electorate  is  in  earnest 
and  has  a  ministry  to  its  mind."  2 

A  subordinate  position  may,  however,  be  a  useful  position ; 
and  it  stands  to  reason  that  if  a  second  chamber  is  to  be  retained 
at  all,  it  ought  to  be  made  up  in  such  a  manner  as  to  give  it  the 
greatest  possible  amount  of  industriousness  and  intelligence. 
The  uses  of  a  second  chamber  are  to  compel  delay  and  delibera- 
tion ;  to  make  it  impossible  for  a  legislature  to  be  swept  off  its 
feet  by  a  sudden  wave  of  unreasoning  popular  opinion ;  "  to 
serve  as  an  organ  of  revision,  a  check  upon  democracy,  an  in- 
strument by  which  conservatism  in  action  may  be  had,  and  a 
means  for  securing  a  representation  of  interests  that  is  not 
feasible  in  a  single  chamber  composed  of  members  elected  di- 
rectly by  the  people."  3  The  object,  however,  is  not  mere 
obstruction,  such  as  may  arise  from  inertia,  incapacity,  or 
partisanship.  It  is,  instead,  serious-minded  criticism,  delib- 
eration, and  revision,  with  a  view  to  the  general  welfare  rather 
than  mere  political  exigencies.  Properly  performed,  the  function 
is  no  less  honorable,  and  hardly  less  important,  than  that  of 
initiation,  or  that  of  final  decision,  as  performed  by  the  lower 
chamber.  The  House  of  Lords  has  served  the  British  nation 
well  in  the  past ;  if  it  is  wisely  reconstructed,  its  usefulness  will 
increase  rather  than  diminish  in  the  future.4 

1  C.  D.  Allin,  "The  Position  of  Parliament,"  in  Amcr.  Polit.  Sci.  Rev.,  June,  1914. 

2  Low,  Governance  of  England  (rev.  ed.),  223. 

3  Willoughby,  Government  of  Modem  States,  318.  Classic  discussions  of  the  uses 
of  a  second  chamber  include  J.  S.  Mill,  Representative  Government  (London,  1862), 
Chap,  xiii,  entitled  "Of  a  Second  Chamber,"  and  John  Adams,  Defence  of  the  Con- 
stitutions of  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America  (Boston,  1787)-  The  latter 
work  will  be  found  in  C.  F.  Adams  [ed.],  Works  of  John  Adams  (Boston,  1851), 
IV,  270-58S.  The  relative  advantages  of  the  unicameral  and  bicameral  systems 
are  clearly  set  forth  in  Garner,  Introduction  to  Political  Science,  427-440. 

4  The  literature  of  the  subject  of  second  chamber  reform  in  England  is  volumi- 
nous and  only  a  few  of  the  more  important  titles  can  be  mentioned  here.  _  The  sub- 
ject is  discussed  briefly  in  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,  Chap,  xxii;  Moran, 
English  Government,  Chap,  xi;  Low,  Governance  of  England,  Chap,  xiii;  and  H. 
W.  V.  Temperley,  Senates  and  Upper  Chambers  (London,  1910),  Chap.  v.  Im- 
portant books  include  W.  C.  Macpherson,  The  Baronage  and  the  Senate;  or  the 
House  of  Lords  in  the  Past,  the  Present,  and  the  Future  (London,  1893) ;  T.  A. 
Spalding,  The  House  of  Lords:  a  Retrospect  and  a  Forecast  (London,  1894);  J.  W. 
Wylie,  The  House  of  Lords  (London,  1908) ;  W.  S.  McKechnie,  The  Reform  of  the 
House  of  Lords  (Glasgow,  1909) ;  W.  L.  Wilson,  The  Case  for  the  House  of  Lords 
(London,  19 10) ;  and  J.  H.  Morgan,  The  House  of  Lords  and  the  Constitution  (Lon- 
don, 1910).     Of  these,  the  first  is  one  of  the  most  forceful  defenses  and  the  second 


i62  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROP1 

one  of  the  most  incisive  criticisms  of  the  upper  chamber  that  have  been  written. 
A  brief  review  bj  an  able  French  writi  r  is  A.  Esmein,  La  Ckambre  des  Lords  et  la 
democratic  I  Paris,  1910).  Among  articles  in  periodicals  may  be  mentioned  II.  \\ . 
Horwill,  "The  Problem  of  the  House  of  Lords,"  in  Polit.  Sci.  Quor.,  Mar.,  1008; 
E.  Porritt,  "The  Collapse  of  the  Movement  against  the  Lords,"  in  N. 
Juno,  1008;  ibid.,  "Recent  and  Pending  Constitutional  Changes  in  England," 
in  Atner.  Po  .  May,  tgio;  J.  L.  Garvin,  "The  British  Elections  and  their 

Meaning,"  in  Fortnightly  Ret  ,  Feb.,  191  :<;  J.  \.  R.  Marriott,  "The  Constitutional 
Cri-i~,"  in  Nineteenth  Cent.,  Jan.,  1910:  J.  I'..  Firth,  "  \  Real  Second  Chamber," 
in  Fortnightly  Rev.,  Nov.,  1917  ;  and  A.  Williams,  "The  Requisite  Second  Chamber," 
in  Contetnp.  Rev.,  Sow,  [917.  A  readable  -I. etch  i-  A.  I..  I".  Dennis,  "Impressions 
of  British  Party  Politics,  1909-1911,"  in  Amer.  Polit.  Sci.  Rev.,  Nov.,  ton;  ami 
the  best  accounts  of  the  Parliament  Act  and  of  its  history  are  :  Dennis,  "The  Parlia- 
ment Act  of  101 1."  ibid.,  May  and  Aug.,  1912;  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  His- 
tory of  England,  III,  343-384;  Lo  rnment  of  England  (rev.  ed.,  New  York, 
I,  Chap,  wiiia;  Annual  Register  for  the  years  1910  and  tun  ;  M.  Sibert, 
"Le  vote  du  Parliament  Act,"  in  Rev.  tin  Droit  Public,  Jan.  Mar.,  1912,  and  "I. a 
reforme  de  la  Chambre  des  Lords."  ibid.,  July-Sept.,  101:.  A  book  of  some 
value  is  C.  T.  King,  The  Asquith  Parliament,  igo6-igog;  a  Popular  Sketch  of  its 
Men  and  its  Measures  (London,  1910). 


CHAPTER  X 

PARLIAMENTARY   ORGANIZATION 

Sessions :  the  Opening  of  a  Parliament.  —  It  is  required  by- 
law (a  succession  of  "  triennial  acts,"  beginning  in  1641)  that 
Parliament  shall  be  convened  at  least  once  every  three  years ; 
on  account  of  the  pressure  of  business  and,  in  particular,  because 
of  the  custom  which  forbids  granting  control  of  the  army  and 
voting  supplies  for  a  period  longer  than  one  year,  meetings  are, 
in  point  of  fact,  annual.1  A  session  ordinarily  begins  near  the 
first  of  February  and  continues,  with  brief  adjournments  at 
holiday  seasons,  until  August  or  September.  The  two  houses 
must  invariably  be  summoned  together.  Either  may  adjourn 
without  the  other ;  but  the  king  can  force  an  adjournment  of 
neither.  A  prorogation,  which  brings  a  session  to  a  close,  and 
a  dissolution,  which  brings  a  parliament  to  an  end,  must  be 
ordered  for  the  two  houses  concurrently.  Both  take  place 
technically  at  the  command  of  the  king,  actually  upon  the 
decision  of  the  cabinet.  A  prorogation  is  to  a  somewhat  in- 
definite date,  which  is  determined  later  by  the  proclamation  of 
a  new  session;  and,  like  a  dissolution,  but  unlike  an  adjourn- 
ment, it  terminates  all  pending  business. 

At  the  beginning  of  a  session  the  members  of  the  two  houses 
gather,  first  of  all,  in  their  respective  chambers.  The  commoners 
are  thereupon  summoned  to  the  chamber  of  the  Lords,  where 
the  letters  patent  authorizing  the  session  are  read  and  the  Lord 
Chancellor  makes  known  the  desire  of  the  crown  that  the  Com- 
mons proceed  to  choose  a  Speaker.  The  commoners  withdraw 
to  attend  to  this  matter,  and  on  the  next  day  the  newly  elected 
official,  accompanied  by  the  members,  presents  himself  at  the 
bar  of  the  House  of  Lords,  announces  his  election,  and,  through 
the  Lord  Chancellor,  receives  the  royal  approbation.  Having 
demanded  and  received  a  guarantee  of  the  "  ancient  and  un- 
doubted rights  and  privileges  of  the  Commons,"  the  Speaker 
and  the  members  then  retire  to  their  own  quarters,  where  the 

1  See,  in  this  connection,  J.  G.  Randall,  "The  Frequency  and  Duration  of  Parlia- 
ments," in  Amer.  Polit.  Sci.  Rev.,  Nov.,  1916. 

163 


[64  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

!  -;u\  oaths  are  administered.  If.  as  is  no!  unusual,  the 
king  meets  Parliament  in  person,  he  goes  in  state,  probably 
the  next  day,  to  the  House  of  Lords  and  takes  his  seat  upon 
the  throne,  and  the  Lord  Chamberlain  is  instructed  to  desire 
the  Gentleman  Usher  of  the  Black  Rod  to  command  the  attend- 
ance once  more  of  the  Commons.  If  the  sovereign  does  not 
attend,  the  Lords  Commissioners  bid  the  Usher  to  desire  the 
Commons'  presence.  In  any  case,  the  commoners  present  them- 
selves, and  the  king  Cor,  in  his  absence,  the  Lord  Chancellor) 
reads  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  in  which  the  cabinet  —  for 
it  is  the  real  author  of  the  speech  —  sets  forth  its  program  for 
the  session.  Following  the  retirement  of  the  sovereign,  the 
commoners  again  withdraw,  the  Throne  Speech  is  re-read  and  an 
address  in  reply  is  voted  in  each  house,  and  "  the  Government," 
i.e.,  the  cabinet,  begins  the  introduction  of  fiscal  and  legislative 
proposals.  In  the  event  that  a  session  is  not  the  first  one  of 
a  parliament,  the  election  of  a  Speaker  and  the  administration 
of  oaths  are,  of  course,  omitted.1 

Physical  Surroundings.  —  From  the  beginning  of  parlia- 
mentary history  the  meeting  place  of  the  houses  has  regularly 
been  Westminster,  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Thames.  The  last 
parliament  to  sit  at  any  other  spot  was  the  third  Oxford  Parlia- 
ment of  Charles  II,  in  1681.  The  Palace  of  Westminster  - 
in  medieval  times  outside,  although  near,  the  principal  city  of 
the  kingdom  —  was  long  the  most  important  of  the  royal  resi- 
dences, and  it  was  natural  that  its  great  halls  and  chambers, 
together  with  the  adjoining  abbey,  should  be  utilized  for  parlia- 
mentary sittings.  Of  the  enormous  structure  known  as  West- 
minster to-day  (still  technically  a  royal  palace,  although  not 
a  royal  residence),  practically  all  portions  save  old  Westminster 
Hall  were  constructed  after  the  fire  of  1834.  The  Lords  first 
occupied  their  present  quarters  in  1847  and  the  Commons  theirs 
in  1850.2 

1  On  the  ceremonies  involved  in  the  opening,  adjournment,  prorogation,  and  dis- 
solution of  a  parliament  see  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution.  [,61-77;  J. 
Redlich,  Procedure  of  the  Hou  ;e  of  ( 'ominous ;  ,1  Study  of  its  History  and  Present  Form, 
trans,  by  A.  E.  Steinthal  (London,   1908),  II.  ;i  -67;  T.  E.  May,  Treatise  on  the 

La      Pri  7       .  /'. lin       and  I  <agt   of  Parliament  (ittli  ed.,  London,  1906), 

Chap.  \ii;  A.  Wright  and  P.  Smith,  Parliament,  Past  and,  /'resent  (London,  1902), 
II,  Chap.  \xv;  MacDonaugh,  Book  of  Parliament,  96  [14,  132  [47,  [84-203; 
and  !L  Graham,  Mother  of  Parliaments  (Boston,  1911),  t35-I57- 

2  MacDonaugh,  Book  of  Parliament,  79  95;  Graham,  Mother  of  Parliaments, 
60-80;    Wrighl  and  Smith,  Parliamen  d  Present,  I.  I  haps,  ri-xiii.    The 

history  of  the  old  Palace  of  Westminster  is  E.  W.  Brayley  and  J.  Britton, 
History  of  the  Ancient  Palace  and  Late  Houses  of  Parliament  at  Westminster  (London, 
1836). 


PARLIAMENTARY  ORGANIZATION  165 

From  opposite  sides  of  a  central  lobby  corridors  lead  to  the 
halls  in  which  the  sittings  of  the  two  bodies  are  held,  these  halls 
facing  each  other  in  such  a  manner  that  the  king's  throne  at 
the  south  end  of  the  House  of  Lords  is  visible  from  the  Speaker's 
chair  at  the  north  end  of  the  House  of  Commons.  The  room 
occupied  by  the  Commons  is  not  large,  being  but  seventy-five 
feet  in  length  by  forty-five  in  breadth.  It  is  bisected  by  a  broad 
aisle,  at  the  upper  end  of  which  is  a  large  table  for  the  use  of  the 
clerk  and  his  assistants,  and  beyond  this  the  raised  and  canopied 
chair  of  the  Speaker.  "  Facing  the  aisle  on  each  side  long  rows 
of  high-backed  benches,  covered  with  dark  green  leather,  slope 
upward  tier  above  tier  to  the  walls  of  the  room ;  and  through 
them,  at  right  angles  to  the  aisle,  a  narrow  passage,  known  as 
the  gangway,  cuts  across  the  House.  There  is  also  a  gallery 
running  all  around  the  room,  the  part  of  it  facing  the  Speaker 
being  given  up  to  visitors,  while  the  front  rows  at  the  opposite 
end  belong  to  the  reporters,  and  behind  them  there  stands, 
before  a  still  higher  gallery,  a  heavy  screen,  like  those  erected 
in  Turkish  mosques  to  conceal  the  presence  of  women,  and  used 
here  for  the  same  purpose."  x  The  rows  of  benches  on  the 
gallery  sides  are  reserved  for  members,  but  they  do  not  afford 
a  very  desirable  location  and  are  rarely  occupied,  save  upon 
occasions  of  special  interest.  In  the  body  of  the  House  there  are 
fewer  than  350  seats  for  707  members.  As  a  rule,  not  even  all 
of  these  are  occupied,  for  there  are  no  desks,  and  the  member 
who  wishes  to  read,  write,  or  otherwise  occupy  himself  seeks 
the  library  or  other  rooms  adjoining.2  The  front  bench  at  the 
upper  end  of  the  aisle,  at  the  right  of  the  Speaker,  is  known  as 
the  Treasury  Bench  and  is  reserved  for  members  of  the  ministry. 

1  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,  249.  Visitors,  technically  "strangers,"  are 
present  only  on  sufferance  and  may  be  excluded  at  any  time ;  but  the  ladies'  gallery 
is  not  supposed  to  be  within  the  chamber,  so  that  an  order  of  exclusion  does  not 
reach  the  occupants  of  it.  In  the  autumn  of  1908,  however,  the  disorderly  con- 
duct of  spectators  in  the  ladies'  and  strangers'  galleries  caused  the  Speaker  to  close 
these  galleries  during  the  remainder  of  the  session.  In  1738  the  House  declared 
the  publication  of  its  proceedings  "a  high  indignity  and  a  notorious  breach  of 
privilege,"  and,  technically,  such  publication  long  remained  illegal.  In  1771,  how- 
ever, the  reporters'  gallery  was  fitted  up,  and  through  a  century  and  a  quarter  the 
proceedings  have  been  reported  and  printed  as  a  matter  of  course.  On  the  status 
of  the  public  and  the  press  in  the  chamber  see  Ilbert,  Parliament,  Chap,  viii;  ibid., 
"The  Secret  Sittings  of  the  House  of  Commons,"  in  Pol  it.  Sci.  Qnar.,  Mar.,  1917; 
Redlich,  Procedure  of  the  House  of  Commons,  II,  28-38 ;  MacDonaugh,  Book  of 
Parliament,  310-329,  350-365 ;   and  Graham,  Mother  of  Parliaments,  259-287. 

2  Forty  members  make  a  quorum.  Except  upon  occasions  of  special  interest, 
the  number  of  members  actually  occupying  the  benches  is  likely  to  be  less  than  two 
hundred,  although  most  of  the  remaining  members  are  within  the  building  or,  in 
any  case,  not  far  distant. 


166  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

The  corresponding  bench  at  the  Speaker's  left  is  similarly  re- 
served for  the  Leaders  of  the  Opposition.  In  so  far  as  is  possible 
in  the  lack  of  a  definite  assignment  of  seats,  members  of  avowed 
party  allegiance  range  themselves  behind  their  leaders,  while 
members  of  more  independent  attitude  seek  places  below  the 
gangway.  "The  accident  that  the  House  of  Commons  sits 
in  a  narrow  room  with  benches  facing  ea<  h  other,  and  not,  like 
most  continental  legislatures,  in  a  semi-circular  space,  with  seats 
arranged  like  those  of  a  theater,  makes  for  the  two-party  system 
and  against  groups  shading  into  each  other."  ' 

The  hall  occupied  by  the  Lords  is  smaller  and  more  elaborately 
decorated  than  that  occupied  by  the  Commons.  It  contains 
cross  benches,  but  in  the  main  the  arrangements  that  have  been 
described  are  duplicated  in  it.  For  social  and  ceremonial  pur- 
poses there  exists  among  the  members  a  fixed  order  of  preced- 
ence.2 In  the  chamber,  however,  the  seating  is  arranged  with- 
out regard  to  this  order,  save  that  the  bishops  occupy  as  a 
group  the  "  Episcopal  Bench,"  consisting  strictly  of  four  benches 
immediately  to  the  right  of  the  woolsack.3  The  Government 
peers  occupy  the  benches  to  the  right  of  the  woolsack  and  the 
Opposition  those  to  the  left,  while  members  who  prefer  a  more 
neutral  position  take  their  places  on  the  cross  benches  between  the 
table  and  the  bar.4 

Officers  of  the  House  of  Commons :  the  Speaker.  —  The 
principal  officers  of  the  House  of  Commons  are  the  Speaker, 
the  Clerk  and  his  two  assistants,  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  and  his 
deputies,  the  Chaplain,  and  the  Chairman  and  Deputy  Chair- 
man of  Ways  and  Means.  The  Clerk  and  the  Sergeant-at- 
Arms,  together  with  their  assistants,  are  appointed  for  life  by 
the  king,  on  nomination  of  the  premier,  but  the  Speaker  and  the 
Chairman  and  Deputy  Chairman  of  Ways  and  Means  are  elected 
for  a  single  parliament  by  the  House.5  All  save  the  Chairman 
and  his  deputy  are,  strictly,  non-political  officers.     The  Clerk 

1  Ilbert,  Parliament,  1 24.  The  chamber  is  fully  described  in  Wright  and  Smith, 
Parliament,  Past  and  Present,  Chap.  xix. 

2  This  order  runs  :  Prince  of  Wales,  other  princes  of  the  royal  blood,  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  Lord  Chancellor,  Archbishop  of  York,  Lord  President  of  the  Coun- 
cil, Lord  Privy  Seal,  the  dukes,  the  marquises,  the  earls,  the  viscounts,  the  bishops, 
and  the  barons. 

3  In  the  days  of  Elizabeth  the  presiding  official  sat  upon  a  sack  actually  filled 
with  wool.  He  sits  now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  upon  an  ottoman,  upholstered  in  red. 
But  the  ancient  designation  of  tin-  scat  survives. 

1  For  full  description,  with  illustrations,  see  Wright  and  Smith,  Parliament,  Past 
and  Present,  Chap.  x\  iii. 

;'  In  point  of  fact,  the  Chairman  and  Deputy  Chairman  retire  when  the  ministry 
by  which  they  have  been  nominated  goes  out  of  office. 


PARLIAMENTARY  ORGANIZATION  167 

signs  all  orders  of  the  House,  indorses  bills  sent  or  returned  to 
the  Lords,  reads  whatever  is  required  to  be  read  during  the 
sittings,  records  the  proceedings  of  the  chamber,  and,  with  the 
concurrence  of  the  Speaker,  supervises  the  preparation  of  the 
Official  Journal.  The  Sergeant-at-Arms  attends  the  Speaker, 
enforces  the  House's  orders,  and  presents  at  the  bar  of  the  House 
persons  ordered  or  qualified  to  be  so  presented.  The  Chair- 
man of  Ways  and  Means  (in  his  absence  the  Deputy  Chairman) 
presides  over  the  deliberations  of  the  House  when  the  body  sits 
as  a  committee  of  the  whole,1  and  exercises  supervision  over 
private  bill  legislation.  Although  a  political  official,  he  pre- 
serves, in  both  capacities,  a  strictly  non-partisan  attitude. 

The  speakership  arose  from  the  need  of  the  House,  when  it 
was  merely  a  petitioning  body,  for  a  recognized  spokesman ;  and 
although  the  known  succession  of  Speakers  begins  with  Sir 
Thomas  Hungerford,  who  held  the  office  in  the  last  parliament 
of  Edward  III  (1377),  there  is  every  reason  to  suppose  that  at 
an  even  earlier  date  there  were  men  whose  functions  were  sub- 
stantially equivalent.  The  Speaker  is  elected  at  the  beginning 
of  a  parliament  by  and  from  the  members  of  the  House,  and  his 
tenure  of  office,  unless  terminated  by  resignation  or  death,  con- 
tinues through  the  term  of  that  parliament.  The  choice  of  the 
House  is  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  crown ;  but,  whereas  in 
earlier  days  the  king's  will  was  in  this  matter  very  influential, 
the  last  occasion  upon  which  a  Speaker-elect  was  rejected  by  the 
sovereign  was  in  1679.  Although  nominally  elected,  the  Speaker 
is  in  fact  chosen  by  the  cabinet,  and  he  is  reasonably  certain 
to  be  taken  from  the  party  in  power.  During  the  nineteenth 
century,  however,  it  became  customary  to  reelect  a  Speaker 
as  long  as  he  was  willing  to  serve,  regardless  of  party  affiliation. 

The  functions  of  the  Speaker  are  regulated  in  part  by  custom, 
in  part  by  rules  of  the  House,  and  in  part  by  general  legislation, 
They  are  numerous  and,  in  the  aggregate,  highly  important. 
The  Speaker  is,  first  of  all,  the  presiding  officer  of  the  House. 
In  this  capacity  he  is  a  strictly  non-partisan  moderator  whose 
business  it  is  to  maintain  decorum  in  deliberations,  decide  points 
of  order,  put  questions,  and  announce  the  result  of  votes.  The 
non-partisan  aspect  of  the  English  speakership  sets  the  office  off 
in  sharp  contrast  with  its  American  counterpart.  "  It  makes 
little  difference  to  any  English  party  in  Parliament,"  says  Bryce, 
"  whether  the  occupant  of  the  chair  has  come  from  their  own  or 
from  hostile  ranks.  ...     A  custom  as  strong  as  law  forbids 

1  On  this  account  he  is  commonly  known  as  the  Chairman  of  Committees. 


7 68  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

aim  to  render  help  to  his  own  side  even  by  private  advice. 
Whatever  information  as  to  parliamentary  law  he  may  feel  free 
to  give  musl  be  equally  at  the  disposal  of  every  member."1 
Unlike  every  other  member  of  the  House,  the  Speaker  makes 
no  political  address  when  he  seeks  reelection  from  his  constitu- 
ency at  a  general  election,  lie  never  publicly  discusser  politi<  3; 
he  never  so  much  as  enters  a  political  club.  Except  in  the  event 
of  a  tie,  he  does  not  vote,  even  when,  the  House  being  in  com- 
mittee, he  is  not  occupying  the  chair.  In  the  second  place,  the 
Speaker  is  the  spokesman  and  representative  of  the  House, 
whether  in  demanding  privileges,  communicating  resolutions, 
or  issuing  warrants.  There  was  a  time  when  he  was  hardly 
less  the  spokesman  of  the  king  than  the  spokesman  of  the  Com- 
mons, but  the  growth  of  independence  of  the  popular  chamber 
enabled  him  long  ago  to  cast  off  this  dual  and  extremely  difficult 
role.  The  Speaker,  furthermore,  declares  and  interprets,  al- 
though he  in  no  case  makes,  the  law  of  the  House.  "  Where," 
says  Ilbert,  "  precedents,  rulings,  and  the  orders  of  the  House 
are  insufficient  or  uncertain  guides,  he  has  to  consider  what 
course  would  be  most  consistent  with  the  usages,  traditions, 
and  dignity  of  the  House  and  the  rights  and  interests  of  its 
members,  and  on  these  points  his  advice  is  usually  followed, 
and  his  decisions  are  very  rarely  questioned.  .  .  .  For  many 
generations  the  deference  habitually  paid  to  the  occupant  of 
the  chair  has  been  the  theme  of  admiring  comment  by  foreign 
observers."'-  Finally,  the  fact  should  be  recalled  that  the 
Parliament  Act  of  191 1  gives  the  Speaker  sole  power,  when 
doubt  arises,  to  determine  whether  a  given  measure  is  or  is  not 
to  be  considered  a  money  bill.  Upon  his  decision  may  hinge 
the  policy  of  the  Government  concerning  an  important  measure, 
and  even  the  fate  of  the  measure  itself. 

The  Speaker's  symbol  of  authority  is  the  mace,  which  is  carried 
before  him  when  he  formally  enters  or  leaves  the  House,  and  lies 
on  the  table  before  him  when  he  is  in  the  chair.  He  has  an 
official  residence,  and  he  receives  a  salary  of  C5000  a  year. 
Upon  retirement  from  office  he  is  practically  certain  to  be  pen- 
sioned and  to  be  raised  to  the  peerage ;  indeed  it  is  a  tradition 
of  a  hundred  years'  standing  that  a  Speaker  shall  not  fall  back 
into  the  rank  and  file  of  the  House  after  the  end  of  his  service 
in  the  chair. :i 

1  American  Commonwealth,  I,  135.  -  Parliament,  140-141. 

:jOn  the  officers  of  the  House  of  Commons  see  Lowell,  Government  of  England, 

I,  Chap,  xii ;    on  the  speakership,  Redlich,  Proccdun  of  the  House  of  Commons,  II, 


PARLIAMENTARY  ORGANIZATION  169 

Committees  of  the  House  of  Commons.  —  Like  all  important 
and  numerous  legislative  bodies,  the  House  of  Commons  ex- 
pedites business  by  making  large  use  of  committees ;  as  recently 
as  19 1 9  the  number  of  committees  was  increased,  and  the  role 
played  by  committees  in  the  consideration  of  legislative  and 
fiscal  proposals  was  much  augmented.1  The  committees 
regularly  employed  in  recent  times  are  of  five  main  kinds : 
(1)  the  Committee  of  the  Whole;  (2)  select  committees  on 
public  bills ;  (3)  sessional  committees  on  public  bills ;  (4)  stand- 
ing committees  on  public  bills ;  and  (5)  committees  on  private 
bills.  Until  1907  a  public  bill,  after  its  second  reading,  went 
normally  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole ;  since  the  date  men- 
tioned, it  goes  there  only  if  the  House  so  determines.  The 
Committee  of  the  Whole  is  simply  the  House  of  Commons, 
presided  over  by  the  Chairman  of  Ways  and  Means  in  the  place  of 
the  Speaker,  and  acting  under  rules  of  procedure  which  permit 
almost  unrestricted  discussion  and  in  other  ways  lend  them- 
selves to  the  free  consideration  of  the  details  of  a  measure. 
When  the  subject  in  hand  relates  to  the  revenues  the  body  is 
known,  technically,  as  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means; 
when  to  appropriations,  it  is  styled  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
on  Supply,  or  simply  the  Committee  of  Supply.2 

Select  committees  consist,  as  a  rule,  of  fifteen  members,  and 
are  constituted  to  investigate  and  report  upon  specific  subjects 
or  measures.  It  is  through  them  that  the  House  collects  evi- 
dence, examines  witnesses,  and  otherwise  obtains  the  informa- 
tion required  for  intelligent  legislation.  After  a  select  committee 
has  fulfilled  the  immediate  purpose  for  which  it  was  set  up  it 
passes  out  of  existence.  Each  such  committee  chooses  its 
chairman,  and  each  keeps  detailed  records  of  its  proceedings, 
which  are  included,  along  with  its  formal  report,  in  the  published 
parliamentary  papers  of  the  session.  The  members  may  be 
elected  by  the  House,  but  in  practice  the  appointment  of  some 
or  all  is  left  to  the  Committee  of  Selection,  which  itself  consists 
of  eleven  members  chosen  by  the  House  at  the  beginning  of  each 
session.  This  Committee  of  Selection,  which  appoints  members 
not  only  of  select  committees  but  also  of  standing  committees 

131-171;  Graham,  Mother  of  Parliaments,  1 19-134;  MacDonaugh,  Book  of  Parlia- 
ment, 115-132;  Porritt,  Unreformcd  House  of  Commons,  I,  Chaps,  xxi-xxii;  A.  I. 
Dasent,  The  Speakers  of  the  House  of  Commons  from  the  Earliest  Times  to  the  Present 
Day  (New  York,  191 1) ;  and  G.  Mer,  Les  speakers:  etude  de  lafonction  presidentielle 
en  Angleterrc  et  aux  £tats-Unis  (Paris,  19 10). 

1  See  p.  170. 

2  See  p.  189. 


i7o  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

and  of  committees  on  private  and  local  bills,  is  made  up  after 
conference  between  the  leaders  of  the  Government  and  of  the 
Opposition,  and,  both  theoretically  and  actually,  it  ignores 
party  lines  in  the  appointments  which  it  makes.  The  number 
of  select  committees  is,  of  course,  variable,  but  ii  i-  never  small. 
A  few  are  constituted  for  an  entire  year  and  arc  known  a-  sessional 
committees.  Of  these,  the  Committee  of  Selection  is  itself  an 
example;  others  are  the  Committee  on  Public  Accounts  and  the 
Committee  on  Public  Petitions. 

Beginning  in  1882,  certain  great  standing  committees  have 
been  created,  to  the  end  that  the  time  of  the  House  may  be 
farther  economized.  In  1907  the  number  of  such  commit  no 
was  raised  from  two  to  four,  each  consisting  of  from  sixty  to  eighty 
members;  and  all  bills  except  money  bills,  private  bills,1  and 
bills  for  confirming  provisional  orders  2  —  that  is  to  say,  sub- 
stantially all  public  non-fiscal  proposals  —  were  thenceforth 
required  to  be  referred  to  one  of  these  committees  (the  Speaker 
determining  which  one)  unless  the  House  directed  otherwise. 
With  a  view  to  expediting  business  still  farther,  the  number 
of  standing  committees  was  raised  in  19 19  to  six;  and  whereas 
before  that  date  no  standing  committee  could  sit  while  the 
House  was  in  session  except  in  pursuance  of  a  motion  offered  by 
the  member  in  charge  of  the  bill  before  the  committee,  the  rules 
now  permit  this  to  be  done  without  any  restriction.3  It  is 
expected  that  measures  referred  to  a  standing  committee  will 
be  so  thoroughly  scrutinized  and  evaluated  by  it  that  they  will 
consume  no  great  amount  of  the  working  time  of  the  House  as 
a  whole.  When  the  number  of  standing  committees  was  in- 
creased in  1 919  the  size  of  each  was  reduced  to  from  forty  to 
sixty,  with  the  provision  that  the  Committee  of  Selection  may 
add  not  fewer  than  ten  nor  more  than  fifteen  members  to  a  com- 
mittee in  respect  to  any  bill  referred  to  it,  and  to  serve  during 
the  consideration  of  that  bill.4  These  additional  and  temporary 
members  are  intended,  of  course,  to  be  experts  on  the  subject 
in  hand.     The  chairman  of  each  committee  is  selected  (from  its 

1  A  private  bill  is  one  which  has  in  view  the  special  interest  of  some  locality, 
person,  or  group  of  persons,  rather  than  the  general  interests  of  the  stair. 

'-'  A  provisional  order  is  an  order  issued  by  an  executive  officer  or  department  of 
the  government  authorizing  a  project  in  behalf  of  which  application  has  been  made. 
'provisional"  because  it  is  not  finally  valid  unless  confirmed  by  Parliament. 
See  p.  196. 

3  On  a  division  being  called  in  tin-  House,  however,  the  chairman  of  a  standing 
committee  is  required  to  suspend  the  proceedings  of  the  committee  for  such  time  as 
will,  in  his  judgment,  enable  members  to  vote  in  the  division. 

4  This  does  not  apply  to  the  committee  on  Scottish  affairs. 


PARLIAMENTARY  ORGANIZATION  171 

own  ranks)  by  a  "  chairman's  panel  "  of  from  eight  to  twelve 
members  designated  by  the  Committee  of  Selection.1 

Organization  of  the  House  of  Lords.  —  It  is  required  that  the 
two  houses  of  Parliament  shall  invariably  be  convened  together  ; 
and  one  may  not  be  prorogued  without  the  other.  The  actual 
sittings  of  the  Lords  are,  however,  very  much  briefer  and  more 
leisurely  than  are  those  of  the  Commons.  Normally  the  upper 
chamber  meets  but  four  times  a  week,  and  by  reason  of  lack  of 
business  or  indisposition  to  consume  time  in  the  consideration 
of  measures  whose  final  enactment  is  assured,  sittings  are  fre- 
quently concluded  within  an  hour ;  although,  of  course,  there  are 
occasions  upon  which  the  chamber  deliberates  seriously  and  at 
much  length.  A  quorum  for  the  transaction  of  business  is  three. 
However,  it  is  but  fair  to  add  that  if  a  division  occurs  upon  a 
bill  and  it  is  found  that  there  are  not  thirty  members  present, 
the  question  is  declared  not  to  be  decided.  Save  upon  formal 
occasions  and  at  times  when  there  is  under  consideration  a 
measure  in  whose  fate  the  members  are  specially  interested, 
attendance  is  always  scant.  There  are  members  who  after 
complying  with  the  formalities  incident  to  taking  a  seat,  rarely, 
and  in  some  instances  never,  reappear  among  their  colleagues. 
It  thus  comes  about  that,  despite  the  fact  that  nominally  the 
House  of  Lords  is  one  of  the  largest  of  the  world's  law-making 
assemblies,  the  chamber  in  reality  suffers  little  from  the  un- 
wieldiness  characteristic  of  deliberative  bodies  of  great  size. 
The  efficiency  of  the  House  is  more  likely  to  be  impaired  by 
paucity  of  attendance  than  otherwise. 

The  officers  of  the  House  of  Lords  are  almost  exclusively 
appointive.  Except  during  the  trial  of  a  peer,2  the  presiding 
official  is  the  Lord  Chancellor,  who,  as  we  have  seen,  is  named 
by  the  king  on  the  advice  of  the  premier.  The  duty  of  presiding 
in  the  upper  chamber  is,  of  course,  but  one  of  many  that  fall  to 
this  extraordinary  dignitary.  If  at  the  time  of  his  appointment 
an  incumbent  is  not  a  peer,  he  is  reasonably  certain  to  be  created 
one,  although  there  is  no  legal  requirement  to  this  effect.  The 
theory  is  that  the  woolsack  which  serves  as  the  presiding  official's 
seat  is  not  within  the  chamber  proper,  and  that  the  official  him- 

1  On  committees  on  private  bills  see  p.  195.  The  committees  of  the  House  of 
Commons  as  they  were  before  the  changes  of  1919  are  described  in  Lowell,  Govern- 
ment of  England,  I,  Chap,  xiii ;  Marriott,  English  Political  Institutions,  Chap,  xi ; 
Ilbert,  Parliament,  Chap,  vi;  Redlich,  Procedure  of  the  House  of  Commons,  II, 
180-214 ;  and  May,  Treatise  on  the  Law,  Privileges,  Proceedings,  and  Usage  of  Parlia- 
ment, Chaps,  xiii-xiv. 

2  See  p.  173. 


172  GOVERNMEN  rS  OF    EUROPE 

self,  as  such,  is  not  a  member  of  the  body.  The  powers  allowed 
him  are  not  even  those  commonly  belonging  to  a  moderator. 
In  the  event  that  two  or  more  members  requesl  the  privilege 
of  addressing  the  chamber,  the  House  itself  decides  which  shall 
have  the  floor.  Order  in  debate  is  enforced,  not  by  the  Chan- 
cellor, but  by  the  members,  and  when  they  speak  they  address, 
not  the  chair,  but  "  My  Lords."  Although,  if  a  peer,  the 
Chancellor  may  speak  and  vote  as  any  other  member,  he  has 
as  presiding  officer  no  casting  vote.  In  short,  the  position 
which  the  Chancellor  occupies  in  the  chamber  is  purely  formal. 

In  addition  to  "deputy  speakers,"  designated  to  preside  in 
the  Chancellor's  absence,  the  remaining  officials  of  the  Lords 
who  owe  their  positions  to  governmental  appointment  are  the 
Clerk  of  Parliament,  who  keeps  the  records;  the  Sergeant-at- 
Arms,  who  personally  attends  the  presiding  officer  and  acts 
as  custodian  of  the  mace  ;  and  the  Gentleman  Usher  of  the  Black 
Rod,  a  pompous  dignitary  whose  function  it  is  to  summon  the 
Commons  when  their  attendance  is  required  and  to  play  a  more 
or  less  useful  part  upon  other  ceremonial  occasions.  The  one 
important  official  whom  the  House  itself  elects  is  the  Lord 
Chairman  of  Committees,  whose  duty  it  is  to  preside  in  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole. 

Privileges  of  Members.  —  On  the  basis  in  part  of  custom  and 
in  part  of  statute,  there  exists  a  body  of  definitely  established 
privileges,  some  of  which  appertain  to  the  Commons  as  a  cham- 
ber, some  similarly  to  the  Lords,  and  some  to  the  individual 
members  of  both  houses.  The  privileges  which  at  the  opening 
of  a  parliament  the  newly  elected  Speaker  "  requests  "  and,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  obtains  for  the  chamber  over  which  he  presides 
include  principally  those  of  freedom  from  arrest,  freedom  of 
speech,  access  to  the  sovereign,  and  a  "  favorable  construction  " 
upon  the  proceedings  of  the  House.  Freedom  from  arrest  is 
enjoyed  by  members  during  a  session  and  a  period  of  forty  days 
before  and  after  it,  but  it  does  not  protect  a  member  from  the 
consequences  of  any  indictable  offense  nor,  in  civil  actions,  from 
any  process  save  arrest.  Freedom  of  speech,  finally  guaranteed 
in  the  Bill  of  Rights,  means  simply  that  a  member  may  not  be 
held  to  account  by  legal  process  outside  Parliament  for  anything 
he  may  have  said  in  the  course  of  the  debates  or  proceedings  of 
the  chamber  to  which  he  belongs.  The  right  of  access  to  the 
sovereign  belongs  to  the  Commons  collectively  through  the 
Speaker,  but  to  the  Lords  individually.  With  the  growth  of 
parliamentary  government  both  it  and  the  privilege  of  "  favor- 


PARLIAMENTARY  ORGANIZATION  173 

able  construction  "  have  ceased  to  have  practical  importance. 
Another  privilege  which  survives  is  that  of  exemption  from  jury 
duty,  although  no  longer  of  refusing  to  attend  court  in  the 
capacity  of  a  witness.  Each  house  enjoys  the  privilege  —  for 
all  practical  purposes  now  the  right  —  of  regulating  its  own  pro- 
ceedings, of  committing  persons  for  contempt,  and  of  judging 
the  qualifications  of  its  members.  The  adjudication  of  dis- 
puted elections,  however,  the  House  of  Commons,  as  has  been 
explained,  handed  over  in  1868  to  the  courts.  A  privilege 
jealously  retained  by  the  Lords  is  that  of  trial  in  all  cases  of 
treason  or  felony  by  the  upper  chamber  itself,  under  the  presi- 
dency of  a  Lord  High  Steward  appointed  by  the  crown.  The 
Lords  are  exempt  from  arrest  in  civil  causes,  not  merely  during 
and  immediately  preceding  and  succeeding  sessions,  but  at  all 
times ;  and  they  enjoy  all  the  rights,  privileges,  and  distinctions 
which,  through  law  or  custom,  have  become  inherent  in  their 
several  dignities.1 

Payment  of  Members  of  the  House  of  Commons.  —  An 
important  step  in  the  democratization  of  the  House  of  Commons 
was  the  decision  in  191 1  to  begin  paying  members  a  salary  out 
of  the  national  treasury.  In  the  Middle  Ages  county  and 
borough  representatives  received,  as  a  rule,  some  compensation 
from  their  constituents.  The  expense  thus  entailed  was,  how- 
ever, considered  a  burden,  and  many  constituencies  applied  to 
be  discharged  from  the  exercise  of  so  costly  a  privilege.  In 
the  Tudor  period  payment  of  members  became  obsolete.2  The 
cost  of  seeking  election  and  of  maintaining  oneself  as  a  parlia- 
mentary member  has  always  been  heavy,  and  for  centuries 
men  of  slender  means  were  practically  debarred  from  candidacy 
for  seats.  After  1900  the  Labor  party  began  to  subsidize  its 
needy  representatives ;  but  such  aid  reached  only  a  small  group 
of  members  and  was  of  an  entirely  private  and  extra-legal  nature. 
Public  and  systematic  payment  of  members,  to  the  end  that 
poor  but  capable  men  might  not  be  kept  out  of  the  Commons, 
was  demanded  by   the  Chartists  three  quarters  of  a  century 

1  On  the  privileges  of  the  Commons  see  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, I,  153-189;  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,  Chap,  xi;  Walpole,  Electorate 
and  Legislature,  Chap,  v;  Redlich,  Procedure  of  the  House  of  Commons,  111,  42-50. 
A  standard  work  in  which  the  subject  is  dealt  with  at  length  is  May,  Treatise  on  the 
Law,  Privileges,  Proceedings,  and  Usage  of  Parliament  (see  especially  chaps,  iii-vi). 

2  The  last  person  known  to  have  received  pay  regularly  as  a  member  was  the  poet 
Andrew  Marvell,  who  sat  for  Hull  during  the  first  eighteen  years  of  the  reign  of 
Charles  II.  Among  devices  employed  by  thrifty  constituencies  in  earlier  times  may 
be  mentioned  the  custom  which  prevailed  in  Rochester  of  making  any  stranger  who 
settled  within  the  city's  gates  liable  to  serve  a  term  in  Parliament  at  his  own  expense. 


174  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

ago,  and  from  time  to  time  after  1870  there  was  agitation  for  it. 
In  [893,  and  again  in  1805,  a  resolution  in  favor  of  the  payment 
of  members  was  adopted  in  the  Commons,  and  in  1906  a  reso- 
lution was  carried  to  the  effect  that  every  member  should  be 
paid  a  salary  of  £300  annually.  But  not  until  191 1  could  a 
measure  of  the  kind  be  got  through  the  upper  chamber. 

Fresh  impetus  was  afforded  by  the  "Osborne  Judgment." 
in  which,  on  an  appeal  from  the  lower  courts,  the  House  of  Lords 
ruled  in  December,  1909,  that  the  payment  of  parliamentary 
members  as  such  from  the  dues  collected  by  labor  organisations 
was  contrary  to  law.1  The  announcement  of  the  decision  was 
followed  by  persistent  demand  on  the  part  of  the  labor  elements 
for  legislation  to  reverse  the  ruling.  In  connection  with  the 
budget  presented  to  the  House  of  Commons  by  the  Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer  May  16,  191 1,  the  proposition  was  made,  not 
to  take  action  one  way  or  the  other  upon  the  Lords'  decision, 
but  to  provide  for  the  payment  to  all  non-official  members  of 
the  House  of  Commons  of  a  yearly  salary  of  £400  (S2000) ;  and 
on  August  10  a  resolution  was  carried  in  the  Commons  providing 
for  "  the  payment  of  a  salary  at  the  rate  of  £400  a  year  to  every 
member  of  the  House,  excluding  any  member  who  is  for  the  time 
being  in  receipt  of  a  salary  as  an  officer  of  the  House  or  as  a 
minister,  or  as  an  officer  of  His  Majesty's  Household."  Most 
of  the  Unionists  were  opposed  to  the  innovation,  and  a  number 
of  Liberals  did  not  like  it.  But  the  Government  was  bent  on 
carrying  it  through  as  the  only  practicable  means  of  escape 
from  the  difficulties  in  which  it  was  involved  with  its  ally,  the 
Labor  party ;  and  the  measure,  in  due  course,  became  law.2 

1  Osborne  vs.  Amalgamated  Society  of  Railway  Servants.  \Y.  V.  Osborne, 
foreman  porter  at  Clapton  station  on  the  Great  Western  Railway  and  secretary 
of  the  Walthamstow  branch  of  the  Amalgamated  Society,  objected  to  the  rule  of 
his  union  requiring  contributions  from  all  members  towards  the  payment  of  main- 
tenance allowance  to  labor  representatives  in  Parliament.  Many  trade  unionists 
shared  his  views,  and  a  test  case  was  brought,  in  the  endeavor  to  show  I  hat  the  rule 
was  ullri  vires,  and  hence  void.  The  King's  Bench  decided  against  the  plaintiff, 
but  the  Court  of  Appeal  reversed  the  judgment,  and  the  case  was  taken  to  the  House 
of  Lords,  which  sustained  the  intermediate  tribunal.  See  Ogg,  Economic  Develop- 
ment of  Modern  Europe,  434-440;  S.  and  B.  Webb,  History  of  Trade  Unionism 
(newed.,  London,  kji  i),  344-408;  W.V.Osborne,  My  Case:  the  Cause  and  Effect 
Osborne  Judgment  (London,  toio);  II.  VY.  Horwill,  "The  Payment  of  Labour 
Representatives  in  Parliament,"  in  PolU.  Sri.  Qnar.,  June,  1010. 

■The  effei  t  of  the  Osborne  Judgment  was  to  debar  trade  unions  from  devoting 
their  funds  not  only  to  political  purposes  but  to  Various  oilier  objects  in  which 
the  unions  and  their  members  are  interested.  A  Scottish  court  went  so  far  as  to 
hold  that  a  union  had  no  power  to  pay  the  expenses  of  delegates  to  the  annual  trade 
union  congress.  Protests  from  labor  against  these  drastic  restraints  led,  in  1913, 
to  a  Trade  Union  Act,  which  not  only  laid  down  a  clearer  definition  of  the  term 


PARLIAMENTARY  ORGANIZATION  175 

The  payment  of  salaries  to  the  members  of  great  elective 
legislative  bodies  is  not  without  disadvantages.  But  it  is 
fundamentally  justifiable,  and  it  is  to  be  observed  that  Great 
Britain  is  only  one  of  several  European  nations  that  in  recent 
years  have  adopted  the  policy.  Germany  did  so  in  1906,  and 
Italy  in  191 2.  The  amount  of  the  salary  provided  by  the 
British  legislation  of  191 1  is  not  large  (although  it  is  far  larger 
than  that  provided  in  continental  countries) ;  but  it  is  ample 
to  make  candidacy  for  seats  possible  for  numbers  of  men  who 
formerly  could  not  under  any  circumstances  contemplate  a 
public  career. 

"trade  union,"  but  specified  the  conditions  under  which  a  trade  union  may  use  its 
funds.  The  purport  of  the  act  is  (1)  that  a  trade  union  may  apply  its  funds,  with- 
out restriction,  for  any  lawful  objects  or  purposes  (other  than  political  objects) 
which  are  at  the  time  authorized  under  its  constitution,  and  (2)  that  a  tradeunion 
may  raise  funds  for  political  purposes,  but  only  under  two  absolute  conditions, 
namely,  that  a  resolution  in  favor  of  the  political  objects  contemplated  shall  have 
been  passed  by  the  members  of  the  union  by  secret  ballot,  and  that  no  compulsion 
shall  be  placed  upon  members  to  make  such  contributions.  In  both  the  Court  of 
Appeal  and  the  House  of  Lords  the  judges  were  influenced  by  the  fact  that  the  pledge 
rule  of  the  Labor  party  left  the  parliamentary  representative  no  discretion.  This 
rule  was  softened  in  iqii,  although  Labor  members  have  continued  to  be  bound 
by  something  more  than  the  ordinary  obligations  of  party  loyalty.  This  change 
helped  pave  the  way  for  the  legislation  of  1913.     Seep.  279. 


CHAPTER   XT 

PARLIAMENTARY   FUNCTIONS   AND   PROCEDURE:     THE  CABINET 

SYSTEM 

Formal  and  Theoretical  Aspects.  —  The  entire  political  de- 
velopment of  modern  England  centers  around  two  great  facts: 
the  growth  of  the  power  of  Parliament  and  the  establishment  of 
popular  control  in  the  predominant  chamber,  the  House  of 
Commons.  Upon  the  vastness  of  the  powers  attained  by  the 
t  wo  houses  something  has  already  been  said  ;  it  has  been  pointed 
out  that  Parliament  has  long  since  gained  authority  to  alter  or 
add  to  the  national  constitution  at  will,  and  that  many,  if  not 
most,  of  the  great  constitutional  changes  of  recent  times  have 
come  about  in  this  way.  Closely  following  the  power  of  con- 
stitutional amendment  comes  that  of  general  legislation.  It 
.cannot  be  said  that  Parliament  is  the  author  of  all  English  law. 
The  great  body  of  the  common  law  has  sprung  from  sources 
entirely  outside  legislative  halls.  But  in  so  far  as  national  laws 
are  enacted  to-day,  it  is  Parliament,  directly  or  indirectly,  that 
enacts  them.  There  is  no  subject  upon  which  Parliament  can- 
not legislate,  no  sort  of  law  that  it  cannot  put  on  the  statute 
books,  no  existing  law  (written  or  unwritten)  that  it  cannot 
modify  or  rescind.  It  goes  without  saying  that  the  volume  of 
legislation  enacted  by  Parliament  is  enormous.  The  House  of 
Commons,  at  all  events,  is  always  deluged  with  urgent  business ; 
and  while  procedure  has  been  expedited  by  the  more  extensive 
use  of  committees,  and  by  other  devices  to  be  described  presently, 
matters  of  great  importance  often  lie  over  for  years  awaiting  a 
favorable  opportunity  for  their  consideration.  Similarly,  the 
revenues  which  come  into  the  Treasury  and  which  can  be  turned 
to  use  independently  of  Parliament  would  hardly  carry  on  the 
business  of  government  for  a  day,  and  Parliament  (in  effect,  the 
House  of  Commons)  not  only  makes  possible,  by  its  appropria- 
tion acts,^the  legal  expenditure  of  practically  all  public  moneys, 
but  it  provides,  by  its  measures  of  taxation,  the  funds  from 
which  almost  all  appropriations  are  made. 

Furthermore,  Parliament  (again,  mainly  the  House  of  Com- 
mons) has  full  power  to  inquire  into,  criticize,  and  direct  the 

176 


PARLIAMENTARY   FUNCTIONS   AND   PROCEDURE    177 

work  of  administration.  An  essential  feature  of  the  English 
system  is  that  the  ministers  shall  invariably  be  members  of 
Parliament,  that  they  shall  retain  office  only  so  long  as  they 
command  the  support  of  a  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  that  the  cabinet  —  the  inner  circle  composed  of  the  principal 
ministers  —  shall  serve  practically  as  an  executive  committee 
of  Parliament  for  the  general  management  of  the  administrative 
machinery  which  Parliament  sets  up  and  maintains.  "  Parlia- 
ment," once  declared  a  leading  member  of  the  House  of  Lords, 
"  makes  and  unmakes  our  ministries,  it  revises  their  action. 
Ministries  may  make  peace  and  war,  but  they  do  so  at  pain  of 
instant  dismissal  by  Parliament  from  office ;  and  in  affairs  of 
internal  administration  the  power  of  Parliament  is  equally  direct. 
It  can  dismiss  a  ministry  if  it  is  too  extravagant  or  too  econom- 
ical ;  it  can  dismiss  a  ministry  because  its  government  is  too 
stringent  or  too  lax.  It  does  actually  and  practically  in  every 
way  directly  govern  England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland."  * 

Loss  of  Power  to  the  Cabinet  and  to  the  Electorate.  —  All 
of  the  great  powers  thus  attributed  to  Parliament  unquestionably 
belong  to  it.  However,  they  are  actually  exercised  by  the  two 
houses  with  not  quite  so  much  initiative,  continuity,  and  force 
as  these  broad  statements  would  imply ;  and  it  becomes  neces- 
sary to  look  somewhat  beneath  the  surface  to  discover  the  true 
situation.  Such  scrutiny  reveals  the  fact  that,  so  far  as  the 
actual  exercise  of  its  powers  is  concerned,  Parliament  has  lost, 
and  is  losing,  on  the  one  side  to  the  cabinet,  and  on  the  other  to 
the  electorate.  For  the  moment  there  is  something  shocking  in 
this  discovery ;  we  had  been  accustomed  to  think  of  Parliament 
as  the  great  organ  of  popular  government,  and  a  diminution  of 
the  powers  which  it  wields  suggests  a  recession  of  democracy. 
But  reassurance  comes  when  we  reflect  that  loss  of  power  to 
the  cabinet  is  not  necessarily  inconsistent  with  popular  govern- 
ment, since  the  cabinet  is  made  up  largely  of  elected  members 
of  Parliament,  and  is  responsible  to  the  House  of  Commons; 
while,  of  course,  a  loss  to  the  electorate  means  throwing  power 
back  directly  into  the  hands  of  the  people. 

To  this  last-mentioned  development  three  things  have  chiefly 
contributed.  The  first  is  the  great  increase  of  popular  informa- 
tion and  the  sharpening  of  public  opinion  upon  political  affairs, 
made  possible  by  the  printing  press,  the  telegraph,  and  other 
aids  to  quick  and  cheap  dissemination  of  news  and  ideas.     "  A 

1  The  Duke  of  Devonshire,  quoted  in  Low,  Governance  of  England  (new  ed.), 
57-58. 

N 


,7s  GOVERNMENTS  Of    EUROPE 

debate,  .1  vote,  <>r  a  scene/'  Bays  Lowell,  "  that  occurs  in  Parlia- 
ment Late  at  night  is  btOUght  home  to  the  whole  country  at 
breakfast  the  next  morning,  and  prominent  constituents,  clubs, 
committees,  and  the  like,  can  praise  or  censure,  encourage  or 

admonish,  their  member  for  his  vote  before  the  next  sitting  of 
the  House."  '  Under  the  constant  gaze  of  his  constituents, 
the  member  is  less  free  to  act  and  speak  and  vote  as  he  likes 
than  was  his  predecessor  of  a  hundred  years  ago.  A  second 
factor  in  the  situation  is  the  growth  of  the  idea  of  the  referendum, 
or  the  popular  mandate.  Legally,  Parliament  is  still  free  to 
make  constitutional  changes  and  to  enact  ordinary  legislation 
at  will.  But  in  the  past  quarter-century,  and  especially  since 
the  sharp  political  struggles  of  1009  11,  the  view  has  come  to  be 
widely  held  that  before  taking  final  action  on  matters  of  greal 
Importance  the  houses,  through  their  leaders,  ought  to  consult 
the  nation  (ordinarily  by  means  of  a  dissolution,  followed  by  a 
national  election),  so  that  definitive  legislation  may  be  based  on 
a  fresh  and  unmistakable  mandate  from  the  people.  A  third, 
and  more  important,  factor  is  the  remarkable  growth  of  the 
power  of  the  cabinet,  and  the  actual  supplanting,  in  a  considerable 
measure,  of  cabinet  responsibility  to  the  House  of  Commons 
by  cabinet  responsibility  directly  to  the  electorate.  This 
matter  of  the  cabinet's  increased  power,  as  it  affects  Parliament, 
calls  for  some  comment. 

Cabinet  and  Parliament  in  Legislation.  —  A  hundred  years 
ago,  and  less,  the  members  of  the  cabinet  had  comparatively 
little  to  do  with  law-making.  They  were  already,  with  only 
an  occasional  exception,  members  of  Parliament.  But  their 
duties  were  mainly  executive,  and  they  bore  little  general  re- 
sponsibility for  the  legislation  that  was  enacted.  The  public 
demand,  however,  that  came  upon  them  as  administrators  for 
remedial  legislation,  the  growing  complexity  of  the  relations  be- 
tween legislation  and  administration,  and  the  increasing  com- 
pactness and  morale  of  the  inner  ministerial  group  —  in  short, 
the  ripening  of  the  cabinet  system  —  brought,  during  the 
nineteenth  century,  a  totally  changed  situation.  The  cabinet 
of  to-day  not  only  actively  participates  in  law-making;  it 
decides  what  important  measures  are  to  be  brought  before  the 
houses,  puts  these  measures  into  form,  introduces  them,  explains 
them,  defends  them,  presses  for  their  passage,  takes  full  re- 
sponsibility for  them  after  they  are  passed,  and  gives  up  the 
attempt  to  govern  if  they,  or  any  of  them,  are  definitely  rejected 
1  Government  oj  England,  I,  425. 


PARLIAMENTARY   FUNCTIONS  AND   PROCEDURE    179 

by  the  popular  chamber.  Every  cabinet  member  has,  of  course, 
a  seat  in  one  house  or  the  other ;  and  in  the  house  of  which  he  is 
not  a  member  he  —  or,  more  accurately,  the  executive  depart- 
ment or  office  over  which  he  presides  —  has  as  a  rule  a  spokes- 
man in  the  person  of  a.  parliamentary  under-secretary.  Measures 
which  are  brought  forward  by  the  cabinet  are  known  as 
"  Government  bills."  They  are  almost  certain  to  be  passed. 
What  happens  in  case  one  of  them  is  defeated  depends  on  the 
circumstances ;  but  the  fall  of  the  cabinet  is  not  unlikely  to  be 
the  result.  Bills  may  be  introduced  by  members  of  the  two 
houses  who  do  not  belong  to  the  cabinet.  But  little  time  is 
allowed  for  the  consideration  of  these  "  private  members'  bills," 
and  few  are  ever  passed  —  none  that  are  of  a  far-reaching  and 
controversial  nature. l 

Indeed,  the  ordinary  member  plays  a  distinctly  passive  role. 
He  listens  to  the  speeches  of  the  Government  leaders  in  favor 
of  their  bills,  and  to  the  rejoinders  by  the  leaders  of  the  Opposi- 
tion; he  may,  if  he  is  adroit,  manage  to  take  some  small  part 
in  the  discussion  himself ;  and  he  finally  gives  his  vote  one  way 
or  the  other.  How  he  will  vote  can  usually  be  told  in  advance ; 
for  his  vote  helps  to  decide  the  fate  not  only  of  the  bill  under 
consideration,  but  of  the  ministry,  and  therefore  the  fortunes 
of  his  party.  Liberal  members  must  vote  for  the  bills  intro- 
duced by  a  Liberal  ministry  or  ruin  that  ministry  and  drive  their 
own  party  from  power.  Only  by  voting  consistently  and  solidly 
against  the  Government's  bills  can  the  Opposition  hope  to  make 
a  showing  that  will  attract  strength  and  eventually  build  up 
the  majority  that  is  necessary  to  a  cabinet  overturn  in  its  favor. 
Nowhere  are  party  lines  more  sharply  drawn  than  in  the  House 
of  Commons  (conditions  in  war  time  are,  of  course,  exceptional)  ; 
in  few  legislative  bodies  does  the  ordinary  member  exercise  less 
personal  initiative.  "  To  say,"  concludes  the  American  writer 
who  has  made  the  closest  study  of  this  subject,  "  that  at  present 
the  cabinet  legislates  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  Parliament 
would  hardly  be  an  exaggeration ;  and  it  is  only  the  right  of 
private  members  to  bring  in  a  few  motions  and  bills  of  their 
own,  and  to  criticize  Government  measures,  or  propose  amend- 
ments to  them,  freely,  that  prevents  legislation  from  being  the 

1  Under  standing  orders  long  in  effect  before  the  Great  War,  Government  business 
had  precedence  at  every  sitting  except  after  8.15  on  Tuesday  and  Wednesday 
evenings  and  at  the  sitting  on  Friday ;  and  under  motions  for  adjournment  ur- 
gent matters  of  public  importance  might  displace  private  members'  motions  even 
at  these  times.  During  the  war  the  Government  claimed  all  of  the  time,  to  the 
entire  exclusion  of  private  members'  bills. 


iSo  GOVERNMENTS  01    I  I  ROPE 

work  of  a  mere  automatic  majority.  It  dot-  not  follow  that  the 
action  of  the  cabinel  is  arbitrary.  .  .  .  The  cabinel  has  its 
finger  always  on  the  pulse  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  espe- 
cially of  its  own  majority  there;  and  it  is  ever  on  the  watch  for 
expressions  of  public  feeling  outside.  It-  function  is  in  large 
part  to  sum  up  and  formulate  the  de-ire-  of  its  supporters,  but 
the  majority  must  accept  its  conclusions,  and  in  carrying  them 
out  becomes  well-nigh  automatic."  ' 

Cabinet  and  Parliament  in  Administration.  —  A  similar  situa- 
tion exists  in  the  domain  of  executive  and  administrative  work. 
Most  of  the  members  of  the  cabinet  stand  at  the  head  of  great 
executive  offices  or  departments.     As  ministers,  their  primary 
business  is  to  supervise  the  work  carried  on  in  and  through  these 
agencies;   and  ever  since  the  cabinet  system  came  into  existence 
their  direct  and  full  responsibility  to  Parliament  (actually,  the 
House  of  Commons)  for  all  of  their  executive  actions  has  been 
accepted  as  axiomatic.     The  theory  is  that  the  ministers  are 
answerable  to  the  elected  chamber  for  all  that  they  do,  singly 
in  small  or  isolated  matters,   collectively  in  important  ones; 
that  their  acts  can  be  examined,  criticized,  revised,  or  annulled  ; 
and 'that  the  great  powers  which  they  wield  can  be  stripped 
from  them  whenever  the  House  of  Commons  chooses  to  with- 
hold  from  them  its  support.     Any  member  of  the  House  of 
Commons  may  address  a  question   (subject  to   the  Speaker's 
judgment  as  to  its  propriety)  to  any  minister  of  the  crown  who 
is  also  a  member,  with  a  view  to  obtaining  information.     Except 
in  special  cases,  notice  of  questions  must  be  given  at  least  one 
day  in  advance,  and  half  an  hour  or  more  is  allowed  at  four 
sittings  every  week  for  the  asking  and  answering  of  such  ques- 
tions.    A  minister  may  answer  or  decline  to  answer,  but  unless 
a  refusal  can  be  shown  to  arise  from  legitimate  considerations 
of  public  interest  its  political  effect  may  be  embarrassing.     Or- 
dinarily there  is  no  debate.     But  if  the  matter  is  an  important 
one,  and  the  House  is  not  satisfied  with  the  minister's  reply,  the 
questioner  may  ask  leave   to  "  move  the  adjournment  of  the 
House  "  ;    and  if  forty  members  support  his  request,  a  debate 
(nominally  on  that  motion,  but  really  on  the  substance  of  the 
question)    takes  place;    and   the  Government,  which    formally 
opposes  the  motion,  if  defeated,  must  resign,  or  at   least    the 

1  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,  326.  For  criticism  of  the  alleged  autocracy 
of  the  cabinet  in  legislation  see  Jenks,  Government  of  the  British  Empire,  11 2-1 13, 
and  especially  E.  (lark,  "  Woman  Suffrage  in  Parliament ;  a  Test  for  Cabinet  Autoc- 
racy,"  in  Amer.  Polit.  Sci.  Rev.,  May,  1917. 


PARLIAMENTARY   FUNCTIONS   AND   PROCEDURE     1S1 

minister  concerned  must.1  The  asking  of  questions  is  liable 
to  abuse,  but,  as  is  pointed  out  by  Ilbert,  "  there  is  no  more 
valuable  safeguard  against  mal-administration,  no  more  effective 
method  of  bringing  the  searchlight  of  criticism  to  bear  on  the  ac- 
tion or  inaction  of  the  executive  government  and  its  subordinates. 
A  minister  has  to  be  constantly  asking  himself,  not  merely  whether 
his  proceedings  and  the  proceedings  of  those  for  whom  he  is 
responsible  are  legally  or  technically  defensible,  but  what  kind 
of  answer  he  can  give  if  questioned  about  them  in  the  House, 
and  how  that  answer  will  be  received.'1 2  Any  member  may 
bring  forward  a  motion  censuring  the  Government  or  any 
member  or  department  thereof;  and  a  motion  of  this  sort, 
when  emanating  from  the  leader  of  the  Opposition,  leads  to  a 
vote  of  confidence  upon  whose  result  may  hang  the  fate  of  the 
ministry.  Special  committees  can  be  created  to  investigate 
the  work  of  any  minister  or  department,  and  their  reports  may 
be  made  the  basis  of  a  parliamentary  censure.3 

Legally,  therefore,  the  ministers  are  subject  to  complete  and 
continuous  control,  in  their  executive  capacity,  by  Parliament. 
But  this  does  not  mean  that  Parliament  actually  participates 
in,  or  even  habitually  interferes  with,  the  ministers'  executive 
work.  On  the  contrary,  the  executive  is  more  free  from  legis- 
lative control  than  is  either  the  president  of  the  United  States 
or  the  ministry  in  France.4  Never,  save  when  the  Long  Parlia- 
ment, in  the  Cromwellian  era,  drew  to  itself  the  executive 
power  and  bestowed  it  upon  committees  which  it  appointed, 
has  Parliament  manifested  a  disposition  to  take  part  in  any 
direct  way  in  the  exercise  of  that  power.  Nor  has  Parliament 
(since  the  period  mentioned)  ever  taken  to  itself  the  function 
of  administration.  It  receives  the  annual  budget  from  the 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  and  gives  it  a  reasonable  amount 
of  scrutiny ;  but  the  budget  is  made  by  the  executive  authority, 
and  Parliament  does  not  assume  to  alter  it  in  any  particular 
unless  the  executive  assents.  No  money  is  voted  except  as 
requested  by  the  crown.     Parliament  does  not  attempt  to  say 

1  Jenks,  Government  of  the  British  Empire,  157.  Compare  the  French  practice 
of  interpellation,  described  below.     See  p.  444. 

2  Parliament,  113-114.  . 

3  A  parliamentary  committee  is  constituted  by  an  order  of  either  house,  which 
arms  it  with  power  to  require  the  attendance  of  witnesses  and  the  production  of 
papers.  A  royal  commission  is  constituted  by  the  king  on  the  advice  of  the 
ministry,  and  lacks  the  powers  mentioned  unless  Parliament,  by  a  special  act, 
endows  it  with  them.  A  departmental  committee  is  constituted  by  a  minister,  under 
similar  limitation. 

4  See  p.  443. 


t8a  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

how  the  departments  shall  be  organized,  how  large  their  staffs 

shall  be,  what  salaries  shall  he-  paid,  or  how  reports  shall  be  pre- 
pared.   It  docs  not  n  that  the  appointment  of  officials, 

or  low,  shall  conic  before  it  for  approval  or  disapproval. 
In  short,  notwithstanding  the  legal  omnipotence  of  Parliament, 
the  government  actually  operates  under  a  very  substantia] 
separation  of  powers ;  the  executive  and  administrative  branches 
are  quite  as  autonomous  as  is  the  legislative  branch.  The  fa<  t 
that  the  same  men  arc  the  chief  executive  authorities  and  the 
leaders  inParliamt  nt  does  not  invalidate  this  statement.     Execu- 

ind  legislative  filiations,  as  such,  are  kept  quite  distinct; 
there  is,  as  an  American  writer  puts  it,  a  separation  of  powers 
organically,  although  a  close  union  of  powers  personally.1  In 
contrast,  the  government  of  the  United  States  is  based  upon 
a  full  separation  of  powers  personally,  but  a  large  degree  of  union 
of  powers  organically.  "  A  strong  executive  government, 
tempered  and  controlled  by  constant,  vigilant,  and  representative 
criticism,"  is  the  ideal  at  which  the  parliamentary  institutions 
of  Great  Britain  are  aimed.2     After  all  is  said,  however,  the  fact 

ins  that  in  fifty  years  scarcely  a  ministry  has  been  turned 
out  of  office  by  Parliament  because  of  its  executive  acts.  Parlia- 
mentary inspection  and  criticism  serve  to  keep  the  ministers 
in  a  wholesome  state  of  vigilance.  But,  practically,  they  can 
be  reasonably  assured  that  so  long  as  their  legislative  program 
holds  the  support  of  the  popular  chamber  their  tenure  of  office 
will  be  unbroken.3 

Procedure:  General  Aspects.  —  The  breadth  of  Parliament's 
legislative  and  fiscal  powers  has  been  sufficiently  emphasized. 
Any  sort  of  measure  upon  any  conceivable  subject  may  be  intro- 
duced, and  if  a  sufficient  number  of  the  members  are  so  minded, 
may  be  enacted  into  law.  No  measure  may  become  law  until 
it  has  been  submitted  to  both  houses,  but  under  the  terms  of 
the  Parliament  Act  of  191 1  it  has  been  rendered  easy  for  money 
bills,  and  not  impossible  for  bills  of  other  kinds,  to  be  made  law 
without  the  assent  of  the  House  of  Lords.  In  the  ordinary 
course  of  things,  a  measure  is  introduced  in  one  house,  put 
through  three  readings,  sent  to  the  other  house,  put  there  through 

1  Willoughby,  Government  of  Modern  Slates,  240. 

2Dbert,  Parliament,  119. 

'The  reciprocal  and  changing  relations  of  Parliament  (especially  the  House  of 
Common-;   and  the  cabinet  in   Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I, 

Chaps,  xvii  wiii;  Low,  Governana  of  England,  ("hap.  v ;  Ilbcrt,  Parliament, 
111-119;  Todd,  Parliamentary  Government,  II,  [64  185;  C.  I>.  Allin,  "The  Posi- 
tion of  Parliament,"  in  I'olil.  Sci.  Quar.,  June,  [914. 


PARLIAMENTARY  FUNCTIONS   AND   PROCEDURE    183 

the  same  routine,  deposited  with  the  House  of  Lords  to  await  the 
royal  assent,1  and,  after  having  been  assented  to  as  a  matter  of 
course,  proclaimed  as  law.  Bills,  as  a  rule,  may  be  introduced 
in  either  house,  by  the  Government  or  by  a  private  member. 
It  is  important  to  observe,  however,  in  the  first  place,  that  certain 
classes  of  measures  may  originate  in  one  only  of  the  two  houses, 
e.g.,  money  bills  in  the  Commons  and  bills  of  attainder  and 
other  judicial  bills  in  the  Lords,  and,  in  the  second  place,  that 
with  the  growth  of  the  leadership  of  the  Government  in  legislation 
the  importance,  if  not  the  number,  of  privately  introduced  bills 
has  steadily  decreased,  and  likewise  the  chances  of  their  enact- 
ment. The  procedure  of  the  two  chambers  upon  bills  is  sub- 
stantially the  same,  although,  as  is  illustrated  by  the  fact  that 
amendments  to  bills  may  be  introduced  in  the  Lords  at  any 
stage  but  in  the  Commons  at  only  stipulated  stages,  the  methods 
of  conducting  business  in  the  upper  house  are  more  elastic  than 
those  prevailing  in  the  lower  one. 

Public  Bills :  Earlier  Stages.  —  The  process  of  converting  a 
bill,  whether  introduced  by  the  Government  or  by  a  private 
member,  into  an  act  of  Parliament  is  long  and  intricate.  The 
numerous  steps  that  have  to  be  taken  are  designed  to  prevent 
hasty  and  ill-advised  legislation.  Some  of  them  have  become 
mere  formalities,  involving  neither  debate  nor  vote,  and  the 
process  —  especially  since  certain  changes  were  made  in  1910 
—  is  decidedly  more  expeditious  than  it  once  was.  On  the 
whole,  the  work  of  law-making  is,  however,  still  slow,  and, 
as  will  be  pointed  out,  much  thought  continues  to  be  given 
to  modes  of  speeding  it  up,  or  at  all  events  relieving  Parlia- 
ment of  the  excessive  pressure  of  business  under  which  it  still 
labors. 

The  first  step  is,  of  course,  the  drawing  up,  or  "  drafting," 
of  the  bill  itself ;  for  every  project  for  a  public  act  is  presented 
to  Parliament  in  a  fixed  form,  stating  enactment  by  "  the  King, 
Lords,  and  Commons,"  and  setting  forth  in  regular  order,  and 
in  numbered  clauses,  the  provisions  that  are  desired.  If  the 
bill  is  a  Government  measure,  and  hence  is  sponsored  by  the 
cabinet,  it  is  drafted  by  one  of  the  two  officials  who  share  the  title 
of  Parliamentary  Counsel  to  the  Treasury  and  who  are  lawyers 
appointed  by  the  crown  for  the  purpose,  or  by  some  independent 
expert  specially  engaged.  If  it  is  a  private  member's  bill,  it 
is  drafted  by  the  member  himself  or  by  any  one  whom  he  may 
employ  for  the  purpose.  In  any  case,  it  bears  on  its  back  the 
1  Except  that  money  bills  remain  in  the  custody  of  the  House  of  Commons. 


,S.}  GOV  ERNMENTS  01    El  ROPE 

name  ol  at  leasl  one  member  of  the  House,  who  is  formally 
regarded  as  its  introducer.1 

["he  Farther  step,  in  the  enactment  of  a  bill  in  cither  house  arc. 
as  a  rule,  five:  first  reading,  second  reading,  consideration  by 
,  ommitto  e,  r  porl  from  committee,  and  third  reading.2     Formerly 

the  introduction  of  a  measure  commonly  involved  a  speech  ex- 
plaining at  length  the  nature  of  the  proposal,  Followed  by  a 
debate  and  a  vote,  sometimes  consuming,  in  all,  several  sittings. 
Nowaday-  only  very  important  Government  bills  are  introduced 
in  this  manner.  In  the  case  of  all  others,  the  first  reading  has 
become  a  formality.  The  member  wishing  to  introduce  a 
measure  gives  notice  to  that  effect  and  proceeds  to  lay  the  bill 
on  the  table,  i.e.,  to  have  it  circulated  in  printed  form  among  the 
members  of  the  House.  Upon  all  measures  except  the  most 
important  Government  projects,  opportunity  for  debate  is  first 
afforded  at  the  second  reading,  although  the  discussion  at  this 
stage  must  relate  to  general  principles  rather  than  to  details. 
By  the  adoption  of  a  motion  that  the  bill  be  read  a  second  time 
at  some  date  falling  beyond  the  anticipated  limits  of  the  session 
a  measure  may,  however,  be  killed  at  its  first  reading. 

Public  Bills  :  Later  Stages.  —  A  bill  which  survives  the  second 
reading  is  "  committed."  Prior  to  1907  it  would  go  normally  to 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  Nowadays  it  goes  there  if  it  is  a 
money  bill  or  a  bill  for  confirming  a  provisional  order,  or  if,  on 
other'grounds,  the  House  so  directs ;  otherwise  it  goes  to  one  of 
the  four  (six  since  1919)  standing  committees,  assignment  being 
made  by  the  Speaker.3  This  is  Lhe  stage  at  which  the  provisions 
of  the  measure  are  considered  in  detail  and  amendments  are 
introduced.  After  the  second  reading,  however,  a  bill  may 
be  referred  to  a  select  committee,  and  in  the  event  that  this  is 
done  a  step  is  added  to  the  process ;  for  after  being  returned  by 
the  select  committee  the  measure  goes  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  or  to  one  of  the  standing  committees.  Eventually  the 
bill  is  reported  back  to  the  House.  If  reported  by  a  standing 
committee,  or  in  amended  form  by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
it  is  considered  by  the  House  afresh  and  in  some  detail;   other- 

1  Jenks,  Go'ccrnmrnl  of  the  British  Empire,  i  |>  Tin-  drafting  of  public  bills  is 
admirably  described  in  C.  Ill )irt.  /  14  and  Forms  (Oxford,  1901), 

77-97,  and  more  briefly  in  tin   same  author's  Parliament,  70-81.     llbert  was  a 
member  of  tin-  Parliaments ry  Counsel  for  man)  years. 

ocedure  will  here  be  described  as  it  is  ii    thi   Hou    ;  of  Cornn 

3  In  1919  the  rules  were  modified  so  as  to  permit  money  bill?  also  to  be  consid- 
ered by  standing  committees,  although  the  change  was  made  for  one  session  only. 
It  is  still  uncertain  whether  the  new  rule  will  become  permanent. 


PARLIAMENTARY   FUNCTIONS   AND   PROCEDURE     185 

wise,  the  "report  stage  "  is  omitted.  Finally  comes  the  third 
reading,  the  question  now  being  whether  the  House  approves 
the  measure  as  a  whole.  At  this  stage  any  amendment  beyond 
verbal  changes  makes  it  necessary  to  recommit.  The  carrying 
of  a  measure  through  these  successive  stages  is,  as  a  rule,  spread 
over  several  days,  and  sometimes  several  weeks,  but  it  is  not 
impossible  for  the  entire  process  to  be  completed  during  the  period 
of  a  sitting.  Having  been  adopted  by  the  originating  house,  a 
bill  is  taken  by  a  clerk  to  the  other  house,  there  to  be  subjected 
to  substantially  the  same  procedure.  If  amendments  are  intro- 
duced, it  is  sent  back  in  order  that  the  suggested  changes  may  be 
considered  by  the  first  house.  If  they  are  agreed,  to,  the  measure 
is  sent  up  for  the  royal  approval.1  If  they  are  rejected  and  an 
agreement  between  the  two  houses  cannot  be  reached,  the 
measure  fails.2 

1  The  manner  in  which  the  royal  assent  is  actually  given  is  thus  described  by 
Ilbert :  "The  assent  is  given  periodically  to  batches  of  bills,  as  they  are  passed,  the 
largest  batch  being  usually  at  the  end  of  the  session.  The  ceremonial  observed 
dates  from  Plantagenet  times,  and  takes  place  in  the  House  of  Lords.  The  king  is 
represented  bv  lords  commissioners,  who  sit  in  front  of  the  throne,  on  a  row  of  arm- 
chairs, arrayed  in  scarlet  robes  and  little  cocked  hats.  .  .  .  At  the  bar  of  the  House 
stands  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons,  who  has  been  summoned  from  that 
House.  Behind  him  stand  such  members  of  the  House  of  Commons  as  have  followed 
him  through  the  lobbies.  A  clerk  of  the  House  of  Lords  reads  out,  in  a  sonorous 
voice,  the  commission  which  authorizes  the  assent  to  be  given.  The  clerk  of  the 
crown  at  one  side  of  the  table  reads  out  the  title  of  each  bill.  The  clerk  of  the  Parlia- 
ments on  the  other  side,  making  profound  obeisances,  pronounces  the  Norman- 
French  formula  bv  which  the  king's  assent  is  signified; '  Little  Peddlington  Electric- 
ity Supply  Act.  Le  Roy  le  veult.'  Between  the  two  voices  six  centuries  lie." 
Parliament,  75-76.  On  the  office  of  clerk  of  the  Parliaments  see  Graham,  Mother 
of  Parliaments,  246. 

2  The  legislative  process  is  summed  up  by  Lowell  as  follows:  "Leaving  out 
of  account  the  first  reading,  which  rarely  involves  a  real  debate,  the  ordinary  course 
of  a  public  bill  through  the  House  of  Commons  gives,  therefore,  an  opportunity 
for  two  debates  upon  its  general  merits,  and  between  them  two  discussions  of  its 
details,  or  one  debate  upon  the  details  if  that  one  results  in  no  changes,  or  if  the 
bill  has  been  referred  to  a  standing  committee.  When  the  House  desires  to  collect 
evidence  it  does  so  after  approving  of  the  general  principle,  and  before  taking  up 
the  details.  Stated  in  this  way,  the  whole  matter  is  plain  and  rational  enough.  _  It 
is,  in  fact,  one  of  the  many  striking  examples  of  adaptation  in  the  English  political 
system.  A  collection  of  rules  that  appear  cumbrous  and  antiquated,  and  that  even 
now  are  well-nigh  incomprehensible  when  described  in  all  their  involved  techni- 
cality, have  been  pruned  away  until  they  furnish  a  procedure  almost  as  simple, 
direct,  and  appropriate  as  any  one  could  devise."  Government  of  England,  I,  277- 
278.  . 

The  procedure  of  the  House  of  Commons  on  public  bills  of  a  non-financial 
nature  is  described  in  Lowell,  ibid.,  I,  Chaps,  xiii,  xvii,  xix ;  Anson,  Lav.^and  Custom 
of  the  Constitution,  I,  240-267;  Low,  Governance  of  England,  Chap.  iv;  Moran, 
English  Government,  Chap,  xiv;  Marriott,  English  Political  Institutions,  Chap,  xi; 
Todd,  Parliamentary  Government,  II,  138-163;  and  Ilbert,  Parliament,  Chap.  111. 
The  subject  is  more  intensively  considered  in  Redlich,  Procedure  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  III,  85-112;    May,    Treatise   on    the   Law,  Privileges,  Proceedings, 


r86  GOVERNMEN  l  -   OF    El  ROPE 

Money  Bills:  the  "Estimates."  Money  bills  arc  handled 
in  a  different  way;  and  in  view  of  the  importance  of  the  fiscal 
operation  state,  the  manner  in  which  finance  hills  origi- 

nate, the  form  which  they  take,  the  way  in  which  they  become 
law,  and  the  extent  to  w]  they  are  amended  and  controlled 
by  Parliament  must  at  this  point  be  made  the  subject  of  some- 
what extended  comment.  The  liberties  of  the  English  people 
were  largely  evolved  from  controversies  and  customs  touching 
the  public  purse,  and  the  law  of  the  British  constitution  is 
grounded  upon  the  principle  of  parliamentary  grant  of  supplies 
and  control  of  expenditure.  Long  before  [911  this  authority 
of  Parliament  in  the  domain  of  finance  was  wielded  mainly,  and 
since  that  date  it  has  been  wielded  solely,  by  the  House  of 
Commons.  The  modes  of  its  exercise  are,  chiefly,  four:  (]  1  de- 
termination of  the  sources  from  which,  and  the  conditions  under 
which,  the  national  revenues  are  to  be  raised;  (2)  grant  of  the 
money  estimated  by  the  ministers  to  be  1  ry  to  carry  on 

the  government,  together  with  the  appropriation  of  these  grants 
to  specific  purposes;  (3)  criticism,  in  debate,  of  the  manner 
in  which  the  funds  are  spent ;  and  (4)  an  audit  of  the  accounts 
by  a  parliamentary  officer,  i.e.,  the  Comptroller  and  Auditor- 
General,  and  the  farther  examination  of  them  by  a  parliamentary 
committee,  i.e.,  the  Committee  on  Public  Accounts.  No  taxes 
can  be  laid  without  the  express  sanction  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, and  no  public  money  can  be  expended  without  similar 
authority,  either  in  annual  or  other  formal  appropriation  acts 
or  in  permanent  statutes.  Furthermore,  the  ministers  are 
always  subject  to  interrogation  on  the  floor  of  Parliament  con- 
cerning their  use  of  public  money ;  and  the  accounts  of  the 
spending  departments  and  officers  are  scrupulously  audited  to 
make  certain  that  the  money  voted  by  Parliament  for  a  par- 
ticular service  has  been  spent  upon  that  service  and  upon  no 
other. 

Such  are  the  general  principles  and  rules  under  which  the 
fiscal  system  is  now  organized.     How  the  system  actually  works 

and  Usage  of  Parliament,  Chap,  xviii;  Cl.  Walpole,  House  of  Commons  Procedure, 
with  Notes. on  American  Practice  (London,  1002);  C.  Qbert,  Legislative  Methods 
and  Forms;  and  ibid.,  The  Mechanics  o  (New  York,  1014).     Legisla- 

tive procedure  in  a  self-governing  colony  can  be  1  ompared  with  English  procedure 
by  reading  E.  Porritt,  Evolution  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada  0  "'''  '  '  [918),  Chap. 
xiv.     Procedure  in  the  Unit  can  be  similarly  compared  by  means  of  D.S. 

ler,  History  and  Procedure  of  the  House  of  Representatives  (Boston,  1916). 
An  illuminating  historical  and  pi  '  survey  of  English  lawmaking  is  A. 

V.   Dicey,   Lectures  on  the  Relation  I"1  and  Public  Opinion  in  England 

during  the  Nineteenth  Century  (London,  1905). 


PARLIAMENTARY   FUNCTIONS   AND   PROCEDURE     187 

may  be  at  least  partially  brought  to  view  by  observing  the 
manner  in  which  finance  bills  are  prepared,  scrutinized,  and 
enacted.  The  first  great  step,  or  series  of  steps,  in  arranging 
for  the  financial  operations  of  the  government  in  a  given  fiscal 
year  is  the  preparation  of  the  "  estimates."  l  These  estimates, 
as  the  term  is  officially  employed,  mean  estimates  of  expenditure 
only,  although,  as  will  appear,  computations  of  prospective 
revenues  are  also  prepared.  Three  inflexible  rules  relating  to 
expenditures  have  established  themselves.  The  first  is  that  no 
petition  shall  be  received  nor  any  motion  entertained  looking 
to  a  charge  upon  the  public  revenue  unless  the  outlay  is  asked 
or  supported  by  the  crown.  This  rule,  first  adopted  in  1706 
as  a  defense  against  a  flood  of  private  members'  petitions  in 
behalf  of  persons  claiming  an  arrear  of  pay  as  officers  or  making 
some  other  demand,  became  a  standing  order  in  1713  and  was 
brought  up  to  date  in  1852  and  1866.  It  totally  prevents 
private  members  from  introducing  appropriation  bills  or  reso- 
lutions, although  it  is  not  construed  to  prohibit  non-ministerial 
resolutions  favoring  or  opposing  some  specified  kind  of  expendi- 
ture ;  and  it  averts  most  of  the  evils  which  are  associated  in  the 
United  States  with  the  idea  of  the  congressional  "  pork-barrel," 
The  second  fundamental  rule  is  that  every  request  for  funds 
shall  be  submitted  to  the  House  of  Commons  in  the  form  of  an 
"  estimate,"  i.e.,  a  document  containing  a  careful  calculation  of 
the  amount  of  money  needed  for  a  designated  purpose,  together 
with  a  demand  upon  Parliament  that  the  stipulated  sum  be 
granted  to  the  crown  for  the  purpose  specified.2  The  third 
rule  is  that  all  requests,  i.e.,  estimates,  shall  be  examined  and 
approved  by  the  Treasury,  which  also  must  actually  submit  all 
requests  except  those  for  the  Army  and  the  Navy.  Estimates 
are  therefore  invariably  passed  upon,  before  they  are  presented 
to  Parliament,  by  an  authority  outside  the  department  for  which 
the  money  is  asked ;  and  inasmuch  as  the  Treasury  acts  in  this 
connection  as  the  agent  of  the  ministry,  the  estimates  come  to 
the  House  of  Commons  as  recommendations  —  in  form,  as 
demands  —  of  the  executive  as  a  whole. 

In  this  connection  it  is  essential  also  to  observe  that  Parlia- 
ment does  not  authorize  all  of  the  expenditures  afresh  every 
year.  That  part  of  expenditure  which  requires  annual  author- 
ization is  known  as  expenditure  on  Supply  Services.     That  part 

1  The  fiscal  year  begins  on  April  1  and  ends  on  March  31. 

2  Willoughby,  Willoughby,  and  Lindsay,  Tin  System  of  Financial  Administra- 
tion of  Great  Britain,  48. 


[88  (1()\  ERNM1  ■>  i      OF    EUROPE 

which,  although  subject  to  alteration  by  Parliament  at  any 
time,  does  not  require  recurring  authorization  is  rallt-d  ex- 
penditure on  the  Consolidated  Fund  Services.1  Consolidated 
Fund  expenditures  amount  in  peace  time  to  about  one  third 
of  the  annual  outlay,  and  include  the  charges  of  the  national 
debt,  the  Civil  List,  the  salaries  of  judges,  and  certain  other 
payments.  The  Supply  Services,  for  which  money  is  voted 
afresh  annually,  normally  absorb  about  two  thirds  of  the  total 
expenditure,  and  in  [919  they  included  the  Army,  Navy,  Air, 
and  Civil  Services.2  The  estimates  of  which  we  are  here  speaking 
are  only  those  made  up  yearly  for  the  Supply  Services. 

Ministerial  and  Parliamentary  Scrutiny  of  the  Estimates.  - 
The  principal  steps  in  the  preparation  of  the  estimates  can  be 
indicated  briefly.  First  of  all,  matters  of  general  policy  that 
might  entail  large  changes  of  expenditure,  e.g.,  a  workman's 
insurance  act  or  an  increase  of  the  army,  are  threshed  out  in 
conferences  between  the  officers  of  the  Treasury  and  repre- 
sentatives of  the  departments  concerned,  and  also  in  cabinet 
discussions.  The  departments  thus  gel  a  reasonably  definite 
idea  of  how  far  the  Treasury  is  willing  to  go  in  support  of  their 
projects,  and  of  what  outlays  can  be  planned  without  risk  of  a 
cabinet  veto.  On  October  1  preceding  the  fiscal  year  for  which 
the  estimates  are  to  be  prepared  the  Treasury  sends  a  circular 
letter  to  all  officials  responsible  for  estimates  requesting  them 
to  make  up  and  submit  estimates  of  the  expenses  of  their  depart- 
ments in  the  coming  year.  All  are  asked  to  exercise  the  utmost 
economy  and  admonished  not  to  adopt  the  easy  method  of 
assuming  the  estimates  of  the  past  year  as  the  starting  point  for 
those  of  the  next.  The  responsible  officers  of  the  department 
thereupon  set  their  staffs  at  work  upon  the  estimates,  using  the 
forms  sent  out  from  the  Treasury  on  which  comparative  data 
have  already  been  entered.  Throughout  the  work  the  closest 
contact  is  maintained  with  the  Treasury.  The  rules  require 
that,  in  so  far  as  possible,  additions,  omissions,  or  other  alter- 
ations of  the  existing  arrangements  shall  be  referred  to  the 
Treasury,  before  the  departmental  proposals  as  a  whole  are 
formally  presented.  If  the  Treasury  demurs,  the  department 
may  appeal  to  the  cabinet.  Bui  such  appeals  are  rarely  made 
unless  the  question  is  one  of  exceptional  importance,  and  there 

1  See  p.  76. 

2  It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that,  when  voted,  the  appropriations  for  the 

Suppl  ire  pai'l  out  of  the  Consolidated  Fund  no  less  than  those  constitut- 

ing a  permanent  charge  upon  that  fund. 


PARLIAMENTARY   FUNCTIONS   AND   PROCEDURE     189 

is  a  strong  presumption  that  the  cabinet  will  uphold  the  Treas- 
ury's position.  The  result  is,  as  one  writer  puts  it,  that  the 
estimates,  when  finally  submitted  by  the  departments,  "  repre- 
sent little  more  than  the  statement  of  proposals  that  have  already 
been  agreed  upon  between  the  various  submitting  departments 
and  the  Treasury."  l  After  the  estimates  from  all  departments 
have  been  whipped  into  shape,  the  Estimates  Clerk  in  the 
Treasury  gives  them  final  scrutiny  and  puts  them  in  readiness 
for  consideration  by  Parliament.  The  estimates  for  the  Civil 
Services  are  presented  to  the  House  of  Commons  by  the  Financial 
Secretary  to  the  Treasury ;  those  for  the  Army  and  the  Navy, 
by  the  Secretary  of  State  for  War  and  the  First  Lord  of  the  Ad-, 
miralty  respectively.  Ordinarily,  all  estimates  of  expenditure 
are  in  the  Treasury's  hands  by  January  15. 

Parliament  convenes  some  time  in  February,  and  as  a  rule  the 
estimates  of  expenditure  are  presented  during  the  first  two  weeks 
of  the  session.  On  a  date  fixed  at  the  opening  of  the  session 
the  House  resolves  itself  into  Committee  of  Supply,  which  is 
a  committee  of  the  whole,  sitting  under  the  presidency  of  the 
Chairman  of  Committees.  From  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth 
century  until  191 2  the  estimates  of  expenditure  could  be  con- 
sidered only  in  Committee  of  Supply ;  and  although,  as  will  be 
pointed  out,  provision  was  made  in  the  year  mentioned  for  refer- 
ence of  some  of  them  to  a  select  committee,  this  arrangement 
was  not  very  successful,  and  consideration  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole  went  on  practically  as  before.  After  a  preliminary 
debate  on  "  grievances,"  which  was  once  important  but  is 
meaningless  now  that  Parliament  holds  the  remedy  for  grievances 
in  its  own  hand,  the  Committee  of  Supply  proceeds  to  consider 
the  estimates  by  successive  "  votes,"  i.e.,  divisions  —  some  one 
hundred  and  fifty  in  all  —  in  which  the  estimates  are  grouped 
(corresponding  as  far  as  possible  to  distinct  services)  for  purpose 
of  discussion  and  of  separate  votes.  Each  "  vote  "  becomes 
the  basis  of  a  "  resolution  of  supply,"  which,  upon  being  re- 
ported to  the  House,  is  readopted  in  the  form  of  a  bill ;  and 
eventually  these  bills  are  gathered  into  one  grand  Appropriation 
Act.  At  no  stage  of  the  process  can  a  non-ministerial  member 
move  an  increase  in  a  "  vote,"  for  to  do  so  would  violate  the  rule 
which  requires  all  proposals  for  expenditure  to  emanate  from 
the  crown.  He  may,  however,  move  a  reduction.  The  Com- 
mittee of  Supply  can  vote  the  grant  asked  of  it,  reduce  it,  or 
refuse  it.     It  cannot  increase  it,  annex  a  condition,  or  alter  the 

1  Willoughby  et  al.,  Financial  Administration  of  Great  Britain,  61. 


i  go  GOVERNMEN  1>   01    El  ROPE 

destination,  although  it  may  be  able  to  induce  the  Government 

to  introduce  a  revised  estimate.  The  rules  of  the  House  allow- 
only  twenty  days  for  the  debates  in  Committee  of  Supply,  and 
it  invariably  happens  that  most  of  the  time  is  consumed  on  a 
few  "  votes,"  not  necessarily  the  most  important  ones,  and  that 

many  arc  passed  with  only  the  most  perfunctory  attention  and 
with  no  discussion  whatever.1 
Estimates  of  Revenue:    the  Budget.       Meanwhile   another 

set  of  estimates  has  been  made  ready,  namely,  the  estimates 
of  revenue.  For  these,  too,  the  Treasury  is  primarily  respon- 
sible. Estimates  of  the  revenue  width  can  be  expected  from 
existing  taxes,  from  proposed  increases,  and  from  new  taxes  are 
drawn  up  for  the  Treasury  by  the  Revenue  Departments,2 
mainly  by  the  Statistical  Office  of  the  Board  of  Customs  and 
Excise;  and  proposals  for  modification  of  the  revenue  system, 
whether  designed  solely  for  revenue  or  partially  with  a  view  to 
social  and  economic  regulation,  are  prepared  by  the  Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer.  As  soon  as  practicable  after  the  opening  of 
the  new  fiscal  year  (April  i)  the  Chancellor  presents  to  the  House 
of  Commons,  now  reconstituted  as  the  Committee  of  Ways 
and  Means,  certain  statements,  which,  taken  together,  are  de- 
signed to  indicate  not  only  the  sums  that  have  been  asked  and 
granted,  but  the  prospective  revenues  and  the  steps  that  must 
be  taken  to  render  these  revenues  adequate  to  the  national 
needs;  in  short,  the  Chancellor  introduces  the  budget.  In 
everyday  usage  the  term  "  budget  "  is  given  several  different 
meanings.  The  essence  of  a  budgetary  system,  however,  as 
opposed  to  a  non-budgetary  system,  is,  as  one  authority  states 
it,  that  "  in  the  former  the  effort  is  made,  by  those  who  are 
responsible  for  initiating  financial  measures,  to  consider  both 
sides  of  the  national  account  at  one  and  the  same  time,  or  at 
leasl  in  their  relations  to  each  other,  and  to  place  them  before 
the  legislative  branch  where  appropriations  are  requested,  while 
in  the  latter,  no  such  attempt  is  made."3  The  budgetary 
principle,  as  thus  defined,  is  nowhere  more  fully  operative  than 
in  Great  Britain.  Technically,  the  budget  is  the  speech  in  which 
the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  reviews  the  financial  results 
of  the  year  just  closed,  summarizes  the  estimates  of  expenditure 
and  revenue  for  the  year  just  opening,  and  presents  the  Govern- 
ment's proposals  for  the  increase,  diminution,  or  other  readjust- 

Voung,  System  of  National  Finance,  72. 

toms  and  Excise,  Enland  Revenue,  and  Posl  Office. 
s  Will  I  al.,  Financial  Administration  of  Great  Britain,  255-256. 


PARLIAMENTARY   FUNCTIONS   AND   PROCEDURE     191 

merit  of  taxation.  Practically,  it  is  the  Financial  Statement  on 
which  the  speech  is  based  —  a  document  usually  filling  only 
a  few  pages  of  print,  but  buttressed  by  other  documents  giving 
in  great  detail  the  estimated  income  and  expenditure  of  the 
year  to  which  it  applies.1  Contrary  to  the  situation  in  France 
and  other  continental  countries,  popular  and  parliamentary 
interest  in  the  budget  in  Great  Britain  centers  in  the  plans  for 
taxation  rather  than  in  the  estimates  of  expenditures. 

Estimates  of  revenues  are  considered  by  the  House  of  Com- 
mons under  the  same  general  conditions  as  estimates  of  expen- 
ditures. The  Government's  proposals  are  debated  in  committee 
of  the  whole,  and,  after  adoption  in  the  form  of  resolutions,  are 
incorporated  by  the  House  in  bills ;  private  members  may  not 
move  new  taxation,  although  they  may  move  to  repeal  or  reduce 
taxes  which  the  Government  has  not  proposed  to  alter.  The 
results  of  the  deliberations  are  gathered  annually  in  two  main 
measures  —  the  Finance  Act,  reimposing  the  tea  duty  and  the 
income  tax,  and  the  Revenue  Act,  giving  legal  force  to  any 
resolutions  passed  in  committee  for  the  amendment  of  the 
revenue  laws.  As  in  the  case  of  appropriations,  taxes  do  not 
require  to  be  authorized  in  full  afresh  every  year.  Indeed, 
whereas  most  expenditures  are  thus  authorized,  most  taxes  are 
not,  being  based  on  permanent  statutes  which  are  always  subject 
to  repeal  or  alteration  but  do  not  need  to  be  annually  renewed. 
Death  duties,  stamp  duties,  customs,  excises  —  all  are  imposed 
by  continuing  statutes.  Only  the  tea  duty  and  the  income 
tax  are  regularly  reserved  for  annual  authorization ;  although 
it  must  be  added  that  the  importance  of  these  imposts  in  the 
revenue  system  is  such  that  the  disposition  made  of  them  largely 
determines  the  character  of  the  fiscal  arrangements  for  the  year. 

Lack  of  Parliamentary  Control :  Proposed  Reforms.  —  On 
paper,  the  fiscal  system  thus  outlined  seems  in  full  accord  with 
a  democratic  scheme  of  government  such  as  Great  Britain  boasts. 
There  are,  however,  certain  unsatisfactory  features,  of  which 
the  most  serious  is  the  practical  limitations  upon  the  control 
which  Parliament  can  exercise  over  both  taxation  and  expendi- 
tures, especially  the  latter.  Speaking  broadly,  parliamentary 
control  is,  indeed,  theoretical  rather  than  actual,  and  prolonged 
discussion  of  the  subject,  in  Parliament  and  outside,  has  not 
clearly   demonstrated   how   it   can   be   made   otherwise.     Four 

1  Curiously,  these  documents  are  at  no  stage  brought  together  in  a  single  co- 
ordinated statement.  See  Willoughby  et  al.,  Financial  Administration  of  Great 
Britain,  267-268. 


[92  <io\  ERNMEN  rS   01    El  ROPE 

major  difficulties  appear.  The  6rs1  is  the  antiquated  charactei 
of  the  rules  of  procedure  followed  in  handling  fiscal  matters. 
These  rules  originated  Largely  in  the  seventeenth  and  early 
eighteenth  centuries,  when  it  was  still  considered  the  duty  of 
all  good  members  to  delay,  postpone,  or  obstruct  the  royal 
demands  for  money,  and  the  rules  were  framed  with  this  end  in 
view.  Few  changes  have  been  made,  and  roundabout  processes 
prevail  where  direct  ones  would  be  preferable;  fictions  lead  to 
empty,  and  sometime-,  dilatory,  ceremonies  (e.g.,  the  debate  on 
"grievances");  in  short,  as  one  critic  has  remarked,  much  of 
the  ritual  is  now  no  more  useful  than  the  annual  search  for 
gunpowder  in  the-  cellarage. 

A  second  more  definite  drawback  is  the  lack  of  adaptation  of 
the  Mouse  of  Commons,  sitting  as  a  committee  of  the  whole,  to 
consider  the  estimates  adequately.  The  body  is  altogether  too 
large  for  the  kind  of  work  that  needs  to  be  done.  It  cannot 
examine  witnesses;  its  time  is  limited;  its  deliberations  must 
perforce  take  the  form  of  slow  and  general  debate.  A  third 
disadvantage  is  the  lack  of  intelligible  financial  information.  On 
account  of  sundry  features  of  the  estimates  and  accounts  as 
presented  to  Parliament,  which  are  too  technical  and  extensive 
to  be  explained  here,  both  the  quantity  and  the  quality  of  the 
information  at  the  disposal  of  the  ordinary  member  are  not  such 
as  to  enable  him,  even  if  he  had  the  requisite  time  and  patience, 
to  comprehend  the  fiscal  plans  of  the  Government  in  all  of  their 
parts  and  implications.  Finally  may  be  mentioned  the  fact 
that  if  a  vote  is  challenged  or  a  reduction  moved,  such  a  motion 
is  treated  as  one  of  confidence,  involving  the  fate  of  the  Govern- 
ment. Financial  criticism  thus  becomes  merely  political  or 
party  criticism  ;  members  of  the  party  in  power  refrain  from 
criticism  to  save  appearances  and  to  avoid  the  risk  of  placing 
the  ministry  in  jeopardy,  while  the  Opposition  so  utilizes  the 
debates  on  Supply  as  to  convert  them  from  their  proper  character 
into  discussions,  on  political  lines,  of  the  general  policies  of  the 
( Government. 

The  result  is  that  parliamentary  control  is,  save  on  rare 
occasions,  a  matter  of  mere  form.  The  House  of  Lords  no  longer 
has  the  power  to  obstruet  tin  adoption  of  money  bills;  the 
House  of  Commons,  shorn  by  self-denying  ordinances  of  the 
right  either  itself  to  originate  proposals  for  expenditure  or  to 
increase  the  proposals  submitted  to  it  by  the  crown,  normally 
assumes  that  the  Government  knows  besl  what  is  needed  and 
accepts  whatever  proposals  are  offered  ;    and   while  the  House 


PARLIAMENTARY   FUNCTIONS   AND   PROCEDURE     193 

of  Commons  has  the  right  to  reduce  the  amounts  called  for, 
it  is  not  equipped  to  exercise  this  power  with  any  degree  of 
intelligence  and  impartiality.  The  House,  indeed,  would 
often  be  glad  to  increase  the  amounts,  but  it  has  little  interest 
in  reducing  them ;  in  other  words,  the  true  guardian  against 
extravagance  is  the  executive,  not  the  legislative,  branch.  Ac- 
cordingly, it  "  is  not  surprising,"  says  a  committee  which  in- 
vestigated the  subject  in  191 7-18,  "  that  there  has  not  been  a 
single  instance  in  the  last  twenty-five  years  when  the  House 
of  Commons  by  its  own  direct  action  has  reduced,  on  financial 
grounds,  any  estimate  submitted  to  it.  .  .  .  The  debates  in 
Committee  of  Supply  are  indispensable  for  the  discussion  of 
policy  and  administration.  But  so  far  as  the  direct  effective 
control  of  proposals  for  expenditure  is  concerned,  it  would  be 
true  to  say  that  if  the  estimates  were  never  presented,  and  the 
Committee  of  Supply  never  set  up,  there  would  be  no  noticeable 
difference."  x  The  only  positive  advantages  that  accrue  from 
the  consideration  of  the  estimates  —  at  all  events,  the  estimates 
of  expenditures  —  by  the  House  is  a  certain  enforcement  of 
responsibility  on  the  part  of  the  executive  for  financial  manage- 
ment through  review,  criticism,  and  discussion. 

In  general,  the  system  has  worked  well,  and  most  people  are 
satisfied  with  it.  There  has  been  a  feeling  in  some  quarters, 
however,  that  the  control  of  the  House  of  Commons  ought  to 
be  more  real  and  effective.  In  1902  a  Select  Committee  on 
National  Expenditure  was  instructed  to  inquire  whether  any 
plan  could  be  adopted  for  enabling  the  House  "  more  effectively 
to  make  an  examination,  not  involving  criticisms  of  policy,  into 
the  details  of  national  expenditure."  2  This  committee  recom- 
mended, among  other  changes,  the  creation  of  a  Select  Committee 
on  Estimates,  which,  without  any  power  of  direction  or  control, 
should  have  the  duty  each  year  of  making  a  detailed  investigation 
of  estimates,  organization,  methods,  and  activities  of  some  one 
service  or  group  of  services  (to  be  designated  by  the  Public 
Accounts  Committee),  and  reporting  the  findings  to  Parliament. 
No  action  was  taken  until  191 2.  In  that  year  the  House  of 
Commons  set  up  a  Select  Committee  on  Estimates,  charged  with 
examining  each  session  such  of  the  estimates  presented  to  the 
House  as  it  should  see  fit  to  take  up,  and  with  reporting  to  the 
House  any  possible  economies  which  it  discovered.     The  new 

1  Quoted  in  Edinb.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1920,  175. 

2  A  series  of  similar  inquiries  made  in  1887-89  by  five  different  select  committees 
yielded  no  important  results. 


i94  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

committee  worked  diligently  and  intelligently.  In  1912  it 
dealt  with  some  Civil  Service  votes,  in  [913  with  Navy  votes, 
and  in  1914  it  began  on  Army  votes.  Its  labors  were,  however, 
too  slow  and  too  much  cramped  by  the  limitations  imp 
by  the  House  to  be  of  large  value;  and  during  the  Great  War 
the  committee  was  in  a  state  of  suspended  animation. 

The  war  enormously  increased  the  public  expenditures;  at 
the  same  time,  even  the  theory  of  parliamentary  control  broke 
down.  Hence  the  long-standing  issue  was  brought  to  a  crisis, 
and  in  July,  1917,  a  new  Sele(  l  ( lommitteeon  National  Expendi- 
ture was  set  the  task  of  making  a  fresh  study  of  the  problem. 
In  1 918  this  committee  presented  an  interesting  series  of  reports, 
recommending,  chiefly,  (1)  a  more  active  financial  supervision 
over  the  departments  by  the  Treasury,  (2)  the  appointment 
at  the  beginning  of  each  session  of  Parliament  of  two  standing 
committees  on  estimates  of  fifteen  members  each,  which  should 
examine  the  estimates  with  a  view  to  discovering  and  suggesting 
economies;  (3)  establishment  of  the  principle  that  a  motion 
carried  in  Committee  of  Supply  in  pursuance  of  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  Estimates  Committees  should  not  be  taken 
to  imply  that  the  Government  of  the  day  no  longer  possessed 
the  confidence  of  the  House.  The  commission's  report  attracted 
much  attention,  and  it  has  borne  some  fruit.  Thus  in  1919  the 
House  adopted  a  rule  for  a  single  session  which  permitted  the 
estimates  to  be  considered  by  a  standing  committee,  rather 
than  solely  by  Committee  of  the  Whole.  Strong  objection  was 
raised  on  the  ground  that  to  deprive  the  House,  in  any  degree, 
of  its  traditional  right  to  criticize  and  control  the  executive 
through  discussion  of  the  estimates  would  rob  it  of  its  most 
valued  and  essential  function.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  urged 
that  the  public  interest  required  such  a  saving  of  the  legislature^ 
time,  not  to  speak  of  the  additional  protection  of  the  taxpayer's 
money.  It  is  not  clear  that  the  new  practice  will  definitely 
establish  itself.  If  it  does  so,  the  procedure  described  in  earlier 
portions  of  this  chapter  will  be  correspondingly  altered.1 

1  Procedure  on  money  bills  is  described  in  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I, 
Chap,  xiv;  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  I,  268-281 ;   Ubert,  Parlia- 
ment, Chap,  iv;  ibid.,  Legislative  Methods  and  Forms,  284-298;  Redlich,  Procedure 
House  of  Commons,  III,   1 13-174;    May,   '/'realise  on  the  Law,  Privileges, 
Proceedings,  and  Usage  of  Parliament,  Chap.  x:i.      For  more  extended  treatment 
W.  Willoughby,  \\".  F.  WiUoughby,  and  S.  M.  Lindsay.  Financial  Administra- 
tion of  Great  Britain  (New  York,  1  •  h  7 » ;    R.  Stourm,  The  Budget,  ed.  by  W.  F. 
leb  (New  York,  [917);    H.  Higgs,  Financial  System  of  the  United  Kingdom 
(London,  1914);    E.  Young,  System  of  National  Finance  (London,  1015);   an(l  A. 
J.  V.   Durell,  Principles  and  Practice  of  the  System  of  Control  over  Parliamentary 


PARLIAMENTARY   FUNCTIONS   AND   PROCEDURE     195 

Private  Bills.  —  So  far  as  procedure  goes,  there  is  no  dis- 
tinction between  a  Government  bill  and  a  private  member's 
bill.  Both  are  public  bills.  But  a  private  bill  is  handled  in 
a  manner  peculiar  to  itself.  A  public  bill  is  one  which  affects 
the  general  interests  of  the  state,  and  which  has  for  its  object 
the  promotion  of  the  common  good.  A  private  bill  is  one  which 
has  in  view  the  interest  of  some  particular  locality,  person,  or 
class  of  persons.  The  commonest  object  of  private  bills  is  to 
enable  persons  to  enter  into  combination  to  undertake  works 
of  public  utility  —  the  building  of  railways  or  tramways,  the 
construction  of  harbors  or  piers,  the  draining  of  swamps,  the 
supplying  of  water,  gas,  or  electricity,  and  other  enterprises 
which  in  the  United  States  would  be  regulated  by  state  legisla- 
tures and  city  councils  —  at  their  own  risk  and  for  their  own 
profit.  All  private  bills  originate  in  petitions,  which  must 
be  submitted  in  advance  of  the  opening  of  the  session  during 
which  they  are  to  be  considered.  Their  presentation  and  the 
various  stages  of  their  progress  are  governed  by  detailed  and 
stringent  regulations,  and  fees  are  required  from  both  promoters 
and  opponents,  so  that  the  enactment  of  a  private  bill  of  some 
importance  becomes  a  costly  proceeding  for  the  parties  con- 
cerned, but  also  a  source  of  considerable  public  revenue. 

After  having  been  scrutinized  and  approved  by  parliamentary 
officials  known  as  Examiners  of  Petitions  for  Private  Bills, 
a  private  bill  is  introduced  in  one  of  the  two  houses.  Its  intro- 
duction serves  as  its  first  reading.  At  its  second  reading  debate 
may  take  place  on  the  principle  of  the  measure,  and  afterwards 
the  bill,  if  opposed,  is  referred  to  a  Private  Bill  Committee 
consisting  of  four  members  and  a  disinterested  referee.  If  the 
bill  is  not  opposed,  i.e.,  if  no  adverse  petition  has  been  filed  by 
property  owners,  corporations,  or  other  interests,  the  committee 
of  reference,  under  a  standing  order  of  1903,  consists  of  the 
Chairman  and  Deputy  Chairman  of  Ways  and  Means,  two  other 
members  of  the  House,  appointed  by  the  Committee  of  Selection, 
and  the  Counsel  to  the  Speaker.  The  committee  stage  of  a 
contested  bill  assumes  an  essentially  judicial  aspect.  Promoters 
and  opponents  are  represented  by  counsel,  witnesses  are  ex- 
amined, and  expert  testimony  is  taken.  After  being  reported 
by  committee,  the  measure  goes  its  way  under  the  same  regula- 
tions as  those  controlling  the  progress  of  public  bills. 

Grants  (London,  191 7).  A  useful  discussion,  embodying  a  summary  of  the  work 
of  the  commission  of  191 7-18,  is  E.  H.  Davenport,  Parliament  and  the  Taxpayer 
(London,  1919),  and  a  good  brief  account  is  J.  A.  R.  Marriott,  "Parliament  and 
Finance,"  in  Edinb.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1920. 


196  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

Two  things,  however,  must  be  noted.  The  6rs1  is  that  while 
in  theory  the  distinction  between  public  and  private  hills  is  clear, 
in  point  of  fact  there  is  no  little  difficulty  in  drawing  a  line  of 
demarcation,   and   the   result    has   been    the   recognition  of  a 

class  of  "hybrid"  bills,  partly  public  and  partly  private  in 
content,  and  handled  under  some  circumstances  as  the  one  and 
under  others  as  the  other,  or  even  under  a  procedure  combining 
features  of  both.  The  second  fact  to  be  observed  is  that,  in 
part  to  reduce  expense  and  in  part  to  procure  the  good  will  of 
the  executive  department  concerned,  it  has  become  common 
for  the  promoters  of  enterprises  requiring  parliamentary  sanction 
to  make  use  of  the  device  known  as  "provisional  order."'  A 
provisional  order  is  an  order  issued,  after  investigation,  by  a 
government  department  authorizing  provisionally  the  under- 
taking of  a  project  in  behalf  of  which  application  has  been 
made.  It  eventually  requires  the  sanction  of  Parliament;  but 
such  orders  are  submitted  to  the  houses  in  batches  by  the  several 
departments,  and  their  ratification  is  virtually  assured  in  advance. 
It  is  pointed  out  by  Lowell  that  during  the  years  1 898-1 901 
not  one  tenth  of  the  provisional  orders  laid  before  Parliament 
were  opposed,  and  only  one  failed  of  adoption.1 

Rules  of  the  House  of  Commons.  —  "  How  can  I  learn  the 
rules  of  the  Commons?"  is  a  question  once  put  by  an  Irish 
member  to  Mr.  Parnell.  "  By  breaking  them,"  was  the  philo- 
sophic reply.  Representing,  as  it  does,  a  long  accumulation  of 
deliberately  adopted  regulations,  interwoven  and  overlaid  with 
unwritten  custom,  the  code  of  procedure  under  which  the  busi- 
ness of  the  House  of  Commons  is  conducted  is  indeed  intricate. 
Lord  Palmerston  admitted  that  he  never  fully  mastered  it,  and 
Gladstone  was  on  many  occasions  an  inadvertent  offender  against 
the  "  rules  of  the  House."  Prior  to  the  nineteenth  century,  the 
rules  were  devised,  as  is  pointed  out  by  Anson,  with  two  objects 
in  view :  to  protect  the  House  from  hasty  and  ill-considered 
action  pressed  forward  by  the  king's  ministers,  and  to  secure  fair 
play  between  the  parties  in  the  chamber  and  a  hearing  for  all. 
Not  until  181 1  was  the  business  of  the  Government  permitted 

1  Government  of  England,  I,  385.  On  private  bill  legislation  sec  Lowell,  !,  Chap, 
dlii  h  and  Hirst,  Local  Government  in  England,  II,  338-351 ;  Anson,  Law  and 
Custom  of  the  Constitution,  I,  291  300;  May,  Treatise  on  tin  La  \  Privileges,  Pro- 
ceedings, and  Usage  of  Parliament,  Chaps.  x\iv-x\i\;  Courtney,  Working  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  Kingdom,  Chap,  xviri;  MacDonaugh,  Book  of  Parliament,  398- 
420.  The  standard  treatise  upon  the  subjeel  is  F.  Clifford,  History  of  Private 
Bill  Legislation,  2  vols.  (London,  1  \  later  hook  of  value  is  F.  II.  Spencer, 

Municipal  Origins ;  an  Account  oj  English  Private  Bill  Legislation  relating  to  Local 
Government,  1740-1835,  with  a  C!m pin-  on  Private  BUI  Procedure  (London,  191 1). 


PARLIAMENTARY  FUNCTIONS  AND   PROCEDURE    197 

to  obtain  recognized  precedence  on  certain  days  ;  but  the  history 
of  the  procedure  of  the  Commons  since  that  date  is  a  record  of 
(1)  sharp  reduction  of  the  time  during  which  private  members 
may  indulge  in  discussion  of  subjects  or  measures  lying  outside 
the  Government's  legislative  program,  (2)  increasing  limitation 
of  the  opportunity  for  raising  general  questions  at  the  various 
stages  of  Government  business,  and  (3)  cutting  down  of  the 
time  allowed  for  discussing  at  all  the  projects  to  which  the 
Government  asks  the  chambers'  assent.1 

The  rules  governing  debate  and  decorum  are  not  only  elabo- 
rate but,  in  some  instances,  of  great  antiquity.  In  so  far  as  they 
have  been  reduced  to  writing  they  may  be  said  to  consist  of 
(1)  "  standing  orders,"  of  a  permanent  character,  (2)  "  sessional 
orders,"  operative  during  a  session  only,  and  (3)  "  general 
orders,"  indeterminate  in  respect  to  the  period  of  application. 
In  the  course  of  debate  all  remarks  are  addressed  to  the  Speaker, 
and  in  the  event  that  the  floor  is  desired  by  more  than  one 
member  it  rests  with  the  Speaker  to  designate,  with  scrupu- 
lous impartiality,  who  shall  have  it.  When  a  "  division  "  is  in 
progress  and  the  doors  are  closed,  members  speak  seated  and 
covered,  but  at  all  other  times  they  speak  standing  and  uncovered. 
A  speech  may  not  be  read  from  manuscript,  and  the  Speaker 
has  the  right  not  only  to  warn  a  member  against  irrelevance 
or  repetition  but  to  compel  him  to  terminate  his  remarks.2  A 
member  whose  conduct  is  reprehensible  may  be  ordered  to 
withdraw  and,  upon  vote  of  the  House,  may  be  suspended  from 
service.  Except  in  committee,  a  member  may  not  speak  twice 
upon  the  same  question,  although  he  may  be  allowed  the  floor 
a  second  time  to  explain  a  portion  of  his  speech  which  has  been 
misunderstood.  Undue  obstruction  is  not  tolerated,  and  the 
Speaker  may  decline  to  put  a  motion  which  he  considers  dilatory. 

Closure.  —  Debate  may  be  farther  kept  within  bounds  by  the 
use  of  closure,  of  which  there  are  three  recognized  forms  :  simple 
closure,  the  "  guillotine,"  and  the  "  kangaroo."  Ordinary 
closure  dates  originally  from  1881.  It  was  introduced  in  the 
standing  orders  of  the  House  in  1882,  and  it  assumed  its  present 
form  in  1888.  It  sprang  from  the  efforts  of  the  House  to  curb 
the  intolerably  obstructionist  tactics  employed  a  generation 
ago  by  the  Irish  Nationalists ;  but  by  reason  of  the  increasing 
mass  of  business  to  be  disposed  of  and  the  tendency  of  large 
deliberative  bodies  to  waste  time,  it  has  been  found  too  useful 

1  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  I,  253. 

2  On  parliamentary  oratory  see  Graham,  Mother  of  Parliaments,  203-224. 


i98  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

to  be  given  up.  "  Alter  a  question  has  hccn  proposed,"  reads 
Standing  Order  26,  "  a  member  rising  in  his  place  may  claim  to 
move'  that  the  Question  be  now  put,' and  unle— it  shall  appear  to 
the  Chair  that  such  motion  is  an  abuse  of  the  Rules  of  the  House, 
or  an  infringement  of  the  rights  of  the  minority,  the  Question 
L  that  the  Question  be  now  put'  shall  be  put  forthwith  and 
decided  without  amendment  or  debate.'"  Discussion  may  thus 
be  cut  oft"  instantly  and  a  vote  brought  on.  Closure  is  inopera- 
tive, however,  unless  the  number  of  members  voting  in  the  ma- 
jority for  its  adoption  is  at  least  one  hundred,  or,  in  a  standing 
committee,  twenty. 

A  more  effective  device  is  that  known  as  "  closure  by  compart- 
ments," or  "  the  guillotine."     When  this  is  employed  the  House, 
in  advance  of  the  consideration  of  a  bill,  agrees  upon  an  allot- 
ment of  time  to  the  various  parts  or  stages  of  the  measure,  and 
at  the  expiration  of  each  period  debate,  whether  finished  or 
not,  is  closed,  a  vote  is  taken,  and  a  majority  adopts  that  portion 
of  the  bill  upon  which  the  guillotine  has  fallen.     In  recent  years 
this  device  has  been  regularly  used  when  an  important  Govern- 
ment bill  is  reserved  for  consideration  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole.     Its  advantage  is  economy  of  time,  and  also  assurance 
that  by  a  given  date  final  action  upon  a  measure  shall  have  been 
taken.     The  form  of  closure  nicknamed  the  "  kangaroo  "  arose 
from  the  occasional  authorization  of  the  Speaker  by  the  House 
to  pick  out  for  discussion  from  the  amendments  proposed  for 
any  clause  of  a  given  bill  those  which  he  deemed  most  important ; 
whereupon  those  particular  amendments  could  be  debated,  and 
no  others.     The  Speaker  was  thus  supposed  to  hop,  kangaroo 
fashion,   from  amendment   to  amendment.     In   1919  kangaroo 
closure  was  regularized  by  a  standing  order  (27A)  making  the 
power  of  selecting  amendments  for  debate  a  permanent,  and  no 
longer  a  specially  granted,  attribute  of  the  authority  of  the  chair. 
This  saves  much  time,  although  it  imposes  fresh  burdens  on  the 
already  somewhat  overtaxed  Speaker.1 

Votes  and  Divisions.  —  When  debate  upon  the  whole  or  a 
portion  of  a  measure  ends,  a  vote  is  taken.  It  may  or  may  not 
involve,  technically,  a  "  division."  The  Speaker  or  Chairman 
states  the  question  to  be  voted  on  and  calls  for  the  ayes  and  noes. 
He  announces  the  apparent  result,  and   if  his  decision  is  not 

1  Redlich,  Procedure  of  the  House  of  Commons,  I,  133-212;  (iraham.  Mother  of 
Parliaments,  158-172.  An  excellent  illustration  of  the  use  of  the  guillotine  is  af- 
forded by  the  history  of  the  passage  of  the  National  Insurance  Bill  of  191 1.  See 
Annual  Register  (1911),  232-236. 


PARLIAMENTARY  FUNCTIONS   AND   PROCEDURE     199 

challenged  the  vote  is  so  recorded.  If,  however,  any  member 
objects,  strangers  are  asked  to  withdraw  (save  from  the  places 
reserved  for  them),  electric  bells  are  rung  throughout  the  build- 
ing, the  two-minute  sandglass  is  turned,  and  at  the  expiration 
of  the  time  the  doors  are  locked.  The  question  is  then  repeated 
and  another  oral  vote  is  taken.  If  any  member  still  refuses  to 
accept  the  result  as  announced,  the  Speaker  orders  a  division. 
The  ayes  pass  into  the  lobby  at  the  Speaker's  right  and  the  noes 
into  that  at  his  left,  and  all  are  counted  by  four  tellers  designated 
by  the  Speaker,  two  from  each  side,  as  the  members  return  to 
their  places  in  the  chamber.  This  method  of  taking  a  division  has 
undergone  but  little  change  since  1836.  Under  a  standing  order 
of  1888,  amended  and  strengthened  in  1919,  the  Speaker  is 
empowered,  in  the  event  that  he  considers  a  demand  for  a  division 
dilatory  or  irresponsible,  to  call  upon  the  ayes  and  noes  to  rise 
in  their  places  and  be  counted  ;  but  there  is  seldom  need  to  resort 
to  this  variation  from  the  established  practice.  "  Pairing  "  is 
not  unknown;  and  when  the  question  is  one  of  political  mo- 
ment the  fact  is  made  obvious  by  the  activity  of  the  party 
"  whips."  x 

Procedure  in  the  House  of  Lords.  —  The  rules  of  procedure 
of  the  House  of  Lords  are  in  theory  simple,  and  in  practice  yet 
more  so.  Nominally,  all  measures  of  importance,  after  being 
read  twice,  are  considered  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  referred 
to  a  standing  committee  for  textual  revision,  reported,  and 
finally  adopted  or  rejected.  In  practice  the  process  is  likely  to 
be  abbreviated.  Few  bills,  for  example,  are  actually  referred 
to  the  revision  committee.  For  the  examination  of  such  meas- 
ures as  seem  to  require  it  committees  are  constituted  for  the 
session,  and  others  are  created  from  time  to  time  as  need  of  them 
appears;  but  the  comparative  leisure  of  the  chamber  permits 
debate  within  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  upon  any  measure 
which  the  members  really  want  to  discuss.  Willful  obstruction 
is  almost  unknown,  so  that  there  has  never  been  occasion  for 
the  adoption  of  any  form  of  closure.  Important  questions 
are  decided,  as  a  rule,  by  a  division.     When  the  question  is 

1  On  the  conduct  of  business  in  the  House  of  Commons  see  Lowell,  Government 
of  England,  I,  Chaps,  xv-xvi ;  Ilbert,  Parliament,  Chap,  v ;  Redlich,  Procedure  of 
the  House  of  Commons,  II,  215-264,  III,  1-41 ;  May,  Treatise  on  the  Law,  Privileges, 
Proceedings,  and  Usage  of  Parliament,  Chaps,  viii-xii ;  Medley,  Manual  of  English 
Constitutional  History,  231-284;  Graham,  Mother  of  Parliaments,  225-258;  and 
MacDonaugh,  Book  of  Parliament,  217-247.  On  the  work  of  the  whips  see  especially 
Graham,  op.  cit.,  254-258,  and  on  the  publicity  of  proceedings,  Ilbert,  "Secret 
Sittings  in  the  House  of  Commons,"  in  Polit.  Sci.  Quar.,  Mar.  1917. 


oqo  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

put,  those  members  who  desire  to  register  an  affirmative  vote 
repair  to  the  lobby  at  the  right  of  the  woolsack,  those  who  are 
opposed  to  the  proposal  take  their  places  in  the  corresponding 
lobby  at  the  left,  and  both  group-  are  counted  by  tellers  ap 
pointed  by  the  presiding  officer.  A  member  may  abstain  from 
voting  by  taking  his  station  on  "  the  steps  of  the  throne.'' 
technically  considered  outside  the  chamber.  Prior  to  1868 
absent  members  were  allowed  to  vote  by  proxy,  but  this  in- 
defensible privilege  was  abolished  by  standing  order  in  the  year 
mentioned  and  is  likely  never  to  be  revived.3 

Records.  The  earliest  extant  records  of  parliamentary 
proceedings  are  the  "  rolls  of  Parliament.''  in  six  folio  volumes, 
which  consist  of  petitions  for  redre>s  of  grievances,  notes  on  the 
replies,  records  of  pleas  held  in  the  high  court  of  Parliament, 
and  other  items,  all  belonging  to  the  period  1 278-1 503.  The 
journals  of  the  House  of  Lords  begin  in  1509  ;  those  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  in  1547,  although  the  records  for  the  last  twenty- 
two  years  of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  have  been  lost.  In  earlier 
times  the  journals  were  encumbered  —  although  often  enlivened 
-by  accounts  of  striking  episodes  and  by  notes  on  important 
speeches.  In  the  seventeenth  century,  however,  the  clerks 
were  restrained  from  reporting  the  debates,  and  the  journals 
nowadays  consist  only  of  formal  records  of  "  votes  and  pro- 
ceedings." i.e.,  of  things  done  rather  than  things  said.  Reports 
and  papers  presented  to  the  houses  were  from  an  early  date 
included.  But  nowadays  these  are  published  separately  and 
become  part  of  the  vast  collection  (some  7500)  of  parliamentary 
papers  popularly  known  as  "  blue  books." 

From  1628,  when  the  House  of  Commons  forbade  its  clerks  to 
take  notes  on  speeches,  to  1909,  no  records  of  parliamentary 
debates  were  kept  except  such  as  were  based  on  notes  taken 
more  or  less  surreptitiously  and  published  in  defiance  or  evasion 
of  parliamentary  orders.  After  a  notable  contest  on  the  subject 
in  1 771,  the  debates  were  reported  with  some  regularity.  But 
only  after  1834  was  provision  made  for  the  accommodation  of 
reporters,  and  until  somewhat  after  that  date  the  records  were 
fragmentary  and  inaccurate.  Meanwhile,  various  compilations 
partially  supplied  the  lack  of  systematic  reports.  The  first 
was  the  "Parliamentary  History,"  published  in  1751,  and 
carrying  the  record  down  to  the  Restoration  in  1660.  This 
was  superseded  and  continued  by  William  Cobbett's  "  Parlia- 

1  On  the  conduct  of  business  in  the  House  of  Lords  see  V  and  Custom 

of  the  Constitution,  I,  281-291. 


PARLIAMENTARY  FUNCTIONS  AND   PROCEDURE    201 

mentary  History,"  which  came  down  to  1803.  This,  in  turn, 
was  succeeded  by  Cobbett's  "  Parliamentary  Debates,"  pub- 
lished as  a  running  supplement  to  the  Weekly  Political  Register. 
In  1809  both  the  Register  and  the  "  Debates  "  passed  into  the 
hands  of  the  well-known  printing  firm  of  T.  C.  Hansard.  The 
"  Debates,"  in  successive  series,  under  different  forms  of  manage- 
ment, and  for  years  after  the  Hansard  family  had  ceased  to 
have  any  interest  in  the  publication,  continued  until  1908 ; 
and  the  long  succession  of  portly  volumes  is  known  to  all  students 
of  English  parliamentary  history  as  "  Hansard."  Until  1877, 
the  publication  was  a  purely  private  enterprise,  but  at  that  time 
the  government,  with  a  view  to  greater  fullness  and  accuracy, 
began  to  subsidize  it.  It,  however,  remained  unofficial ;  and 
only  in  1909  was  the  decision  reached  to  replace  it  by  an  official 
publication,  prepared  by  a  staff  of  reporters  in  each  house  who 
were  not  connected  with  any  newspaper  or  commercial  publisher. 
The  records  of  each  day's  debates  are  now  made  up  by  these 
reporters,  and  are  distributed  in  an  unrevised  form  to  members 
of  the  House  of  Commons  by  breakfast  time  of  the  succeeding 
day,  although  the  more  leisurely  House  of  Lords  does  not  permit 
its  reports  to  be  put  into  print  until  the  members  have  had  an 
opportunity  to  revise  the  proof  sheets  of  their  speeches.1 

Relief  of  Parliamentary  Congestion :  Devolution.  —  Long 
before  the  Great  War  thoughtful  Englishmen  were  concerned 
about  the  growing  inability  of  Parliament  to  perform  its  labors 
either  expeditiously  or  with  proper  deliberation,  notwith- 
standing the  frequent  use  of  the  closure  in  the  lower  house  and 
the  severe  limits  placed  upon  the  time  allowed  for  the  con- 
sideration of  private  members'  bills.  A  single  legislature  was 
called  upon  to  make  laws,  control  finance,  scrutinize  adminis- 
tration, and  enforce  executive  responsibility,  not  only  in  the 
United  Kingdom  as  a  whole,  but  in  each  of  the  four  constituent 
and  partially  separate  areas,  England,  Wales,  Scotland,  and 
Ireland ;  and  the  steadily  increasing  intricacy  of  the  conditions 
and  problems  with  which  this  legislature  had  to  deal  augmented 
the  task  from  decade  to  decade,  and  almost  from  year  to  year. 
The  result  was  that  matters  deemed  of  sufficient  importance  to 
be  given  a  leading  place  in  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  at  the 
opening  of  a  session  frequently  received  no  attention  during  the 
session ;    that  a  few  exceptionally  contentious  bills   absorbed 

1  Ilbert,  Parliament,  Chap,  viii;  Graham,  Mother  of  Parliaments,  Chap.  xvi. 
On  the  published  collections  of  the  statutes  of  the  realm  see  Ilbert,  Legislative 
Methods  and  Forms,  Chap.  ii. 


202  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

most  of  the  time;  and  that  measures  were  put  on  the  statute 
book  with  scant  attention  from  the  membership  as  a  whole, 
and  often  with  no  debate  whatsoever.  A  writer  in  1912  found 
that  during  the  decade  1000  09  the  House  of  Commons  passed 
388  Government  bills;  that  (>o  of  these  were  finance  bills;  that 
the  remaining  328  occupied  483  days,  of  which  ten  principal 
measures  consumed  207  days;  and  that,  accordingly,  318  bills 
were  passed  in  276  days.  Again  and  again  parliamentary  and 
royal  commissions  have  carried  on  extensive  investigations  and 
submitted  painstaking  reports,  only  to  see  their  work  become 
useless  as  a  basis  of  legislation  because  of  the  inability  of  Parlia- 
ment to  get  round  to  the  subject  until  after  the  data  had  become 
obsolete. 

The  remedies  that  have  been  proposed  are  of  two  main  sorts. 
The  lirst  is  the  revision  of  the  rules  under  which  the  House  of 
Commons  (for  the  difficulty  lies  there,  not  in  the  upper  chamber) 
carries  on  its  work.  Since  1832  some  fifteen  committees,  ex- 
clusive of  those  having  to  do  with  private  bill  legislation,  have 
been  set  up  with  a  view  to  simplifying  and  expediting  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  House,1  and  many  improvements  have  been 
made.  The  first  parliament  elected  after  the  armistice  in  191 8 
attacked  the  subject  afresh  and,  as  has  been  pointed  out.  ex- 
tended the  use  of  standing  committees,  regularized  "kangaroo" 
closure,  and  in  other  ways  shortened  up  the  legislative  process.2 
The  problem,  however,  cannot  be  entirely  solved  in  this  way; 
at  best,  the  obstacles  to  expeditious  transaction  of  business  are 
lessened  or  removed,  while  the  volume  of  business  to  be  trans- 
acted remains  as  before. 

A  second  suggested  remedy  is.  therefore,  the  withdrawal 
from  Parliament  altogether  of  certain  great  tasks  for  which  it  is 
at  present  responsible  —  in  short,  the  adoption  of  some  scheme  of 
" devolution."  There  are  two  forms  which  devolution  can  be 
made  to  take,  according  as  the  principle  is  applied  functionally 
or  territorially.  Functional  devolution  would  be  realized  by 
setting  up  one  or  more  separate  national  bodies  charged  with 
either  preliminary  or  definitive  control  over  certain  specified 
subjects  or  classes  of  subjects.  A  good  illustration  is  afforded 
by  the  proposal  of  the  National  Industrial  Conference  of  1919 
that  a  permanent  National  Industrial  Council  should  be  created, 
consisting  of  two  hundred  representatives  of  employers  and  an 

1  See,  in  this  connection,  Report  of  the  Select  Committee  on  House  of  Commons 
Procedure,  Cd.  378,  1914. 

2  See  p.  170. 


PARLIAMENTARY  FUNCTIONS  AND   PROCEDURE    203 

equal  number  of  representatives  of  labor,  and  authorized  to 
consider  all  questions  of  an  industrial  nature  and  submit  its 
recommendations  to  Parliament,  which  would  be  expected  to 
give  them  the  form  and  sanction  of  law.1  No  arrangement  of 
this  kind  has  come  about,  and  none  is  likely  to  do  so  —  at  all 
events,  none  resting  on  a  basis  of  formal  law. 

Territorial,  or  regional,  devolution  is,  however,  a  practical 
and  much-discussed  question.  Obviously,  decentralization,  i.e., 
the  transfer  of  functions  and  duties  from  the  government  at 
London  to  the  local  authorities  of  the  county  and  the  borough, 
amounts  to  a  devolution  of  power.  Decentralization  in  this 
sense  has,  however,  gone  about  as  far  as  it  is  likely  to  go,  and 
the  trend  is  to-day  rather  in  the  direction  of  increased  central 
supervision  and  control.  The  term  devolution,  as  currently 
employed,  denotes  rather  the  idea  of  a  segregation  of  govern- 
mental powers  on  the  basis  of  the  great  historic  areas  from  which 
the  United  Kingdom  has  been  formed.  Thus,  Irish  Home  Rule, 
looking  to  a  separate  parliament  for  the  lesser  island,  would  mean 
the  devolution  of  a  large  amount  of  legislation  on  purely  Irish 
affairs ;  and,  as  will  be  noted  later,  the  relief  thus  promised  the 
Imperial  Parliament  has  from  the  first  formed  one  of  the  classic 
arguments  of  the  Home  Rulers.  But  it  has  also  been  proposed 
that  a  separate  parliament  should  be  set  up  in  Scotland,  perhaps 
another  in  Wales,  and  perhaps  even  another  in  England  —  all 
subordinate  to,  but  separate  from,  the  Imperial  Parliament  — 
in  other  words,  that  there  should  be  "home  rule  all  round." 
This,  indeed,  was  the  plan  of  Isaac  Butt,  the  father  of  the  Irish 
Home  Rule  movement;  and  the  Home  Rule  bills  of  191 2  and 
191 9  were  both  put  forward  and  defended  by  the  Government  of 
the  day  as  parts  of  a  general  program  of  regional  devolution.2 
It  was  computed  in  191 2  that  49.8  per  cent  of  the  public  general 
acts  of  Parliament  in  the  past  twenty  years  pertained  to  one  or 
another  of  the  separate  countries  of  the  United  Kingdom  and  that 
only  50.2  per  cent  related  to  the  United  Kingdom  as  a  whole. 
There  is  much  force  in  the  contention  that  separate  parliaments 
in  the  several  constituent  lands  would  enable  the  legislation  for 
any  particular  country  to  be  worked  out  with  more  deliberation 
than  now,  and  in  closer  accord  with  the  sentiments  of  the 
populations  to  be  affected  by  it;  and  it  goes  without  saying 
that  the  parliament  at  Westminster  would  be  relieved  of  a 
large  share  of  its  present  burden  of  local  and  regional  legislation. 

1  R.  Roberts,  "  England  in  Revolution,"  in  N.  Y.  Nation,  May  17,  1919. 

2  See  pp.  290,  321. 


204  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

There  is  already  a  considerable  amounl  of  administrative  dev- 
olution; the  Chief  Secretary  for  Ireland  and  the  Secretarj  for 
Scotland  arc  the  heads  of  great  regional  administrative  systems 
which  are  to  .1  degree  autonomous. 

Legislative  devolution  undeniably  means  a  turning  back  of 
the  pages  of  history,  an  abandonment  of  a  legislative  unity  which 
was  won  with  much  difficulty.  It  might  conceivably  lead  to 
pure  federalism.  On  this  account,  as  well  as  for  other  reasons, 
it  encounters  sturdy  opposition  from  large  and  influential  ele- 
ments, especially  in  England.  The  necessity  of  easing  the  burden 
which  Parliament  now  bears,  joined  with  the  demands  of  the 
several  countries  in  their  own  interest,  will,  however,  probably 
insure  the  triumph  of  the  idea  in  some  form.  A  non-partisan 
resolution  calling  upon  the  Government  to  appoint  a  parlia- 
mentary body  of  inquiry  led  to  a  general  debate  on  the  subject 
in  the  House  of  Commons  in  the  summer  of  191 9,  and  influential 
men  of  all  political  faiths  agreed  that  legislative  devolution  was 
only  a  question  of  time.  The  resolution  was  passed  by  a  sub- 
stantial majority,  and  a  Speaker's  Conference  of  thirty-three 
members  (similar  to  the  Speaker's  Conference  of  1916-17  on 
electoral  reform)  was  set  to  work,  with  power  to  prepare  a  bill. 

The  Conference  concluded  its  sittings  in  the  spring  of  1920  and 
submitted  for  Parliament's  consideration  two  different  schemes, 
one  drawn  up  by  Speaker  Lowther  and  the  other  by  a  Liberal 
member,  Mr.  Murray  Macdonald.  The  Speaker's  plan  looked 
to  the  experimental  creation  of  subordinate  legislatures  for 
the  three  regional  units  of  Great  Britain:  England,  Wales, 
and  Scotland  should  have  separate  divisional  legislatures  called 
''grand  councils";  each  legislature  should  consist  of  a  Council 
of  Commons  and  a  Council  of  Peers ;  the  Council  of  Commons 
should  consist  of  the  members  of  the  Imperial  House  of  Commons 
for  the  given  division ;  the  Council  of  Peers  should  consist  of 
peers  nominated  by  the  Committee  of  Selection  of  the  House 
of  Lords ;  the  grand  councils  should  hold  their  sessions  in  the 
autumn,  so  as  to  avoid  conflict  with  the  sessions  of  the  Imperial 
Parliament,  and  they  should  meet  at  Westminster  or  in  any 
other  place  that  they  might  select.  The  alternative  plan  of 
Mr.  Macdonald  differed  from  this  chiefly  in  providing  for  the 
permanent  establishment  of  separately  elected  subordinate 
parliaments  ;  the  parliament  of  each  geographical  division  should 
consist  of  the  same  number  of  members  as  now  represent  the 
division  in  the  Imperial  Parliament,  organized  on  a  unicameral 
or  bicameral  basis  as  the  Government  should  determine.     Both 


PARLIAMENTARY   FUNCTIONS   AND   PROCEDURE    205 

plans  sought  to  distribute  powers  between  the  Imperial  Parlia- 
ment and  the  subordinate  legislatures  with  a  view  to  allocating 
to  the  latter  all  matters  of  purely  English,  Welsh,  and  Scottish 
concern.  Ireland  was  left  out  of  the  schemes,  on  the  assumption 
that  its  affairs  would  be  adequately  provided  for  by  the  pending 
Home  Rule  legislation.  To  the  date  of  writing  (June,  1920),  the 
subject  has  received  no  farther  consideration  in  Parliament. 
But  it  promises  to  demand  much  attention  in  future  months  and 
years.1 

1  Compare  the  "  regionalist "  movement  in  France,  described  below,  pp.  481-483. 
It  has  even  been  proposed  that  England  itself  be  divided  into  three  provinces, 
with  legislatures  meeting  at  London,  Winchester,  and  York.  On  various  phases 
of  the  subject  see  A.  V.  Dicey,  "Thoughts  on  the  Parliament  of  Scotland,"  in 
Quar.  Rev.,  Apr.,  1916;  J.  A.  R.  MacDonald,  "Devolution  or  Destruction,"  in 
Content  p.  Rev.,  Aug.,  1918;  W.  R.  D.  Adkins,  "Home  Rule  for  England,"  ibid., 
Mar.,  1920;  Anon.,  "The  Better  Government  of  the  United  Kingdom,"  in  Round 
Table,  Sept.,  1918;   B.  Williams  [ed.],  Home  Rule  Problems  (London,  1911),  Chap. 


CHAPTER   XII 

LAW   AND    JUSTICE 

Sources  and  Nature  of  the  Law.  —  "  Nothing,"  says  a  recent 
writer,  "  has  contributed  more  to  the  stability  of  the  British 
Empire,  or  the  respect  in  which  it  is  held,  than  t^he  even-handed 
dispensing  of  justice  which  has  distinguished  its  tribunals,  from 
the  highest  to  the  lowest,  for  the  last  two  hundred  years."  1 
The  fundamental  principle  of  the  English  political  system  may, 
indeed,  be  said  to  be  the  rule  of  law,  which  means,  in  effect,  two 
things :  first,  that  no  man  may  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty, 
property,  or  any  other  fundamental  "  right  "  save  on  account 
of  a  breach  of  the  law  proved  in  court  and,  second,  that  no  man 
stands  above  the  law,  and  that  for  every  violation  of  the  law 
punishment  may  be  inflicted  or  reparation  obtained,  whatever 
the  station  or  character  of  the  offender.2  Upon  these  great 
guarantees  a  system  of  justice  has  been  built  up  which  lends  the 
British  nation  one  of  its  chief  distinctions. 

The  importance  of  English  law  for  the  student  of  jurispru- 
dence arises  from  three  principal  considerations.  In  the  first 
place,  it  is,  along  with  the  Roman  law,  one  of  the  two  great 
bodies  of  law  developed  among  western  peoples  in  historical 
times.  In  the  second  place,  it  has  spread  over  a  very  large  part 
of  the  earth  and  has  profoundly  affected  legal  ideas  and  methods, 
even  outside  English-speaking  lands.3  Finally,  the  English 
system  of  jurisprudence  and  the  English  conceptions  of  law  are 
essentially  those  which  prevail  in  the  United  States,  and  hence 
are  of  peculiar  interest  for  American  students. 

The  English  have  always  been  inclined  to  take  a  very  prac- 
tical view  of  law.  From  at  least  the  seventeenth  century,  they 
have  uniformly  conceived  of  it  as  being  the  rules,  of  whatsoever 
origin  or  nature,   that  the  courts  will   recognize  and  enforce.4 

1  Jenks,  Government  of  the  British  Empire,  246. 

2  The  only  exception  to  this  general  proposition  is  the  sovereign,  who  may  not 
be  sued  or  prosecuted  in  the  ordinary  courts;  but  his  immunity,  as  matters  now 
stand,  is  of  no  practical  importance. 

3  Bryce,  "The  Extension  of  Roman  and  English  law,"  in  Studies  in  History  and 
Jurisprudence.  72-121. 

4  Lowell,  Government  oj  England,  II,  Chap.  lxi. 

206 


LAW   AND   JUSTICE  207 

Principles  or  practices  which  the  courts  will  not  enforce  may  be 
very  influential  as  custom ;  but  they  are  not  law.  Other  impor- 
tant characteristics  of  English  law  are  unity,  antiquity,  and  con- 
tinuity. Formed  originally  of  two  streams  —  the  Saxon  and  the 
Norman-French  —  which  flowed  together  after  the  Conquest, 
the  law  developed  thenceforth  to  our  own  day  with  never  a  break  ; 
one  can  read  one's  way  backward  in  the  great  textbooks  and 
commentaries  —  Blackstone  in  the  eighteenth  century,  Hale  and 
Coke  in  the  seventeenth,  Fitzherbert  in  the  sixteenth,  Littleton 
in  the  fifteenth,  Bracton  in  the  thirteenth,  and  Glanvill  in  the 
twelfth  —  and  find  that  one  is  always  reading  about  the  same 
great,  although  ever  growing  and  expanding,  body  of  law. 

As  the  law  has  taken  shape,  it  comprises  two  great  elements, 
namely,  statute  law  and  common  law.  Statute  law  is  "  enacted  " 
law.  In  earlier  times  it  consisted  mainly  of  royal  legislation ; 
in  later  centuries  it  has  consisted,  rather,  of  acts  of  Parliament, 
supplemented  by  by-laws,  rules,  and  regulations  made  under 
parliamentary  sanction  by  public  officials  and  bodies.  Inas- 
much as  it  is  constantly  being  amended  and  amplified,  its  bulk 
has  come  to  be  enormous.  The  more  comprehensive  and  fun- 
damental part  of  English  law,  however,  is,  and  has  always  been, 
the  common  law.  The  common  law  is  a  product  of  custom  rather 
than  of  legislation.  It  owes  its  existence  to  the  operation  of 
what  the  lawyers  call  stare  decisis  —  the  principle,  namely,  that 
a  decision  of  a  court  shall  set  up  a  presumptive  basis  of  action 
in  all  analogous  cases  subsequently  arising,  and  especially  when 
the  same  decision  has  been  repeatedly  made  or  affirmed  over  a 
long  period  of  time.  No  definite  date  can  be  assigned  for  its 
beginning ;  but  the  great  formative  period  was  the  twelfth  to  the 
fourteenth  century,  and,  more  particularly,  the  reigns  of  Henry  II 
(1154-89)  and  his  immediate  successors.  These  were  the  times 
in  which  large  control  of  local  affairs  was  drawn  into  the  hands 
of  the  king.  On  the  judicial  side,  this  meant  a  wide  substitution 
of  royal  courts  for  feudal  and  other  local  tribunals.  The  judges 
who  presided  in  these  royal  courts  were  sent  out  from  the  central 
government  and  formed  a  compact  group  with  many  opportuni- 
ties for  interchanges  of  opinion  and  with  strong  inducements  to 
accept  one  another's  judgments  and  follow  common  principles 
and  procedure.  On  the  basis  of  their  reiterated  and  mutually 
respected  decisions  arose  the  common  law,  so  called  because  it 
was  universally  applied  wherever  the  king's  courts  were  held  — 
eventually,  in  every  part  of  the  land.1  In  sharp  contrast  was  the 
1  F.  Pollock,  Expansion  of  the  Common  Law  (London,  1904),  46-50. 


2o8  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

situation  in  France,  where  law  remained  throughout  the  Middle 
Ages,  and  indeed  until  the  Revolution,  regional  and  not  national, 
and  ther<  Pore  presented  no  such  aspects  of  unity  and  coherem 

lish  law  offered  from  comparatively  early  centuries.1  So 
vigorous  did  the  English  common  law  become  that  it  success- 
fully resisted  the  influence  of  Roman  law  in  centuries  when  that 
great  system  was  undergoing  marked  revival  on  the  continent;2 
and  this  is  a  fact  of  prime  importance  in  English  constitutional 
development,  because  whereas  the  Roman  law  was  grounded  on 
the  doctrine  of  the  absolute  authority  of  the  prince,  the  common 
law  recognized  no  such  doctrine,  but  instead  became  the  great 
bulwark  of  the  parliamentary  controversialists  of  the  sixteenth 
and  seventeenth  centuries.3 

Despite  the  increased  legislative  activity  of  modern  times,  it 
may  still  be  said  that  the  rules  of  the  common  law  are  funda- 
mental, the  laws  of  Parliament  only  incidental.  Statutes  simply 
assume  the  principles  of  the  common  law,  and  are  largely,  as  one 
writer  has  put  it,  "  the  addenda  and  errata  "  of  this  law,  incom- 
plete and  meaningless  save  in  coordination  with  the  legal  order 
by  which  they  are  supported  and  enveloped.1  Thus  no  act  of 
Parliament  enjoins  in  general  terms  that  a  man  shall  pay  his 
debts,  or  fulfill  his  contracts,  or  pay  damages  for  trespass  or 
slander.  Statutes  define  the  modes  by  which  these  obligations 
shall  be  met,  but  the  obligations  themselves  are  derived  from 
the  common  law.  It  is,  however,  a  fixed  rule  that  where  statutes 
fall  in  conflict  with  the  common  law  the  statutes  prevail.  ^  The 
limitless  power  of  Parliament  involves  the  right  to  set  aside  or 
to  modify  any  common  law  principle  or  practice ;  on  the  other 
hand,  no  development  of  the  common  law  can  annul  a  parliamen- 
tary statute. 

Statute  law,  of  course,  invariably  takes  written  form.     The 

1  See  p.  448. 

2  On  the  influence  of  Roman  law  in  England  see  F.  Pollock  and  F.  \\  .  Maitland, 
History  of  English  Law  to  the  Time  of  Edward  I  (Cambridge,  1898),  I,  Chap,  v; 
Bryce,  Studies  in  llisl<»\  and  Jurisprudence,  860-886;  and  ('.  I*.  Sherman,  "The 
Romanization  of  English  Law."  in  Yale  Law  Jour.,  Feb.,  1914. 

8  Dunning,  Political  Theories  from  Luther  to  Montesquieu,  107-200,  219-223; 
Gooch,  History  of  English  Democratic  Ideas  in  the  Seventeenth  Century.  Chaps,  ii-iii. 

1  W.  M.  I  leldart,  Elements  of  English  La\  I  ondon,  1912),  9.  This  author  fur- 
ther remarks:  "  If  all  th  of  the  realm  were  repealed,  we  should  have  a 
system  of  law,  though,  it  may  be.  an  unworkable  one;  if  we  could  imagine  the 
common  law  swept  away  and  the  statute  law  preserved,  we  should  have  only  dis- 
jointed rules  torn  from  their  context,  and  no  provision  at  all  for  many  of  the  most 
important  relations  of  lift  .'  On  the  relation  of  common  law  and  statutory  law  see 
1  Qbert,  Legislative  Methods  ami  Forms,  Chap.  i.  For  a  classical  statement  see 
Blackstone,  Commentaries,  I,  61-92. 


LAW  AND   JUSTICE  209 

acts  of  Parliament  are  to  be  found  in  imposing  printed  collections, 
to  which  a  substantial  volume  is  added  every  year.1     Of  the 
common  law,  however,  there  is  no  single  or  authoritative  text. 
The  common  law  grew  up  as  unwritten  law,  and  in  the  main 
it  retains  that  character.     None  the  less,  the  sources  from  which 
knowledge  of  it  must  be  drawn  are  largely  in  writing  or  in  print. 
The  most  important  of  them  are  (1)  the  decisions  of  the  judges 
of  the  English  courts  (reported  anonymously  in  Year  Books  from 
the  reign  of  Edward  I  to  that  of  Henry  VIII,  and  thereafter  by 
lawyers  reporting  under  their  own  names),  which,  as  early  as  the 
sixteenth  century  acquired  weight  as  precedents  and  are  nowadays 
practically  decisive  in  analogous  cases  ;  (2)  the  decisions  of  courts 
of  other  countries  in  which  a  law  derived  from  the  English  is 
administered,  such  decisions  being,  of  course,  not  binding,  yet 
highly  influential;  and  (3)  certain  "  books  of  authority"  written 
by  learned  lawyers  of  earlier  times,  such  as  Coke's  Commentary 
on  Littleton's  Tenures  and  Foster's  eighteenth-century  treatise 
on  Crown  Law.     Some  small  branches  of  the  common  law  have, 
indeed,  been  codified  in  the  form  of  statutes,  among  them  the 
law  of  partnership,  that  of  sales,  and  that  of  bills  of  exchange. 
The  Rules  of  Equity.  —  One  other  body  of  English  law  re- 
quires mention,  namely,  the  rules  of  equity.     These  rules  had 
their  origin  in  the  administration  of  an  extraordinary  sort  of 
justice  by  the  king's  chancellor  —  the  "  keeper  of  the  king's 
conscience  "  —  in  medieval  times,  a  practice  which  arose  from 
the  sheer  necessity  of  redressing  grievances  flowing  from  errors  or 
omissions  on  the  part  of  the  regular  tribunals.2     Interference  by 
the  chancellor,  which  started  as  a  matter  of  special  favor  in  un- 
usual cases,  gradually  became  an  established  practice,  and,  con- 
trary to  the  original  intention,  a  body  of  definite  and  separate 
rules  of  equity,  founded  largely  on  Roman  legal  principles,  was 
permitted  to  develop,  and  likewise  a  court  of  chancery  in  which 
these  rules  were  at  all  times  enforceable.     Reports  of  equity  cases 
became  continuous,  and  lawyers  began  to  specialize  in  equity  pro- 
cedure.   The  rules  of  equity  thus  established  partake  largely  of  the 
nature  of  the  common  law,  of  which,  indeed,  they  are,  in  effect,  a 
supplement  or  appendix ;  and  practically,  although  not  theoreti- 
cally, they  prevail  as  against  any  provisions  of  the  common  law  with 
which  they  are  inconsistent.     Their  ultimate  purpose  is  to  afford 

1  Ilbert,  Legislative  Methods  and  Forms,  20-34. 

2  See  p.  82.  G.  B.  Adams,  "The  Origin  of  English  Equity,"  in  Col.  Law.  Rev., 
Feb.,  1916;  ibid.,  "The  Continuity  of  English  Equity,"  in  Yale  Law  Jour., 
May,  191 7  ;  W.  S.  Holdsworth,  "The  Early  History  of  Equity,"  in  Mich.  Law  Rev., 
Feb.,  1915. 

P 


210  c.o\  ERNMEN  IS  OF   EUR<  U'i: 

means  of  safeguarding  rights  which  exist  in  morals,  but  w 
the  courts,  acting  under  the  common  or  statute  law,  cannot  01 
will    nut    protect.      Until    [873    they    wire   administered    by    tri 
bunals  separate  from  the  ordinary  courts.      Nowadays  they  ar< 
not  separately  adrninistered,  hut   they  none  the    less   pn 
their  distinct  charact<  r.1 

The  Judicial  System.  -  The  first  fad  to  he  observed  about  the 
machinery  of  justice  is  that  no  one  system  covers  the  whole  of 
the  United  Kingdom.  The  Act  of  Union  of  1707  guaranteed 
to  Scotland  her  separate  'and  different)  system  of  law  and  law 
courts;  the  Act  of  Union  of  i.Soo  extended  to  Ireland  a  similar 
favor.  Irish  jurisprudence  has  been  largely  assimilated  to  the 
English  ;  the  common  law  extends  over  the  country,  and  the 
courts  are  modeled  on  those  at  Westminster,  although  with 
important  differences.  Scottish  law,  likewise,  is  not  a  native 
product;  but  it  is  modeled  on  the  law  of  France,  and,  therefore, 
is  based  ultimately  on  the  principles  of  the  civil  or  Roman  law. 
Since  1707  the  criminal  law  has  been  gradually  assimilated  to 
the  English  system,  and  nowadays  there  is  little  difference  be- 
tween the  two.  Scottish  civil  law,  however,  is  still  very  unlike 
the  English ;  and  the  distinction  between  law  and  equity  is  prac- 
tically unknown.  Judicial  organization  is  not  on  English  lines; 
for  example,  the  local  tribunals  of  Scotland,  i.e.,  the  sheriffs' 
courts,  exercise  both  criminal  and  civil  jurisdiction,  whereas  in 
England  each  kind  of  cases  is  handled  in  a  separate  set  of  courts. 

1  Two  monumental  works  dealing  with  the  earlier  ph.  lish  legal  develop- 

ment are  F.  Pollock  and  F.  W.  Maitland.  History  of  English  I,  Time  of 

Edward  /,  2  vols.  (Cambridge,  1S9S),  and  W.  S.  Holdsworth,  History  of  I 
vols.   !  London,   1003-00).     'M  olume  of  Holdsworth  conl 

history  of  English  courts  from  the  Norman  Conquesl  to  the  present  day;  the  other 
volumi  I       haustively  with  the  growth  of  the  law  itself.     Other  important 

books  arc  :  H.  Brunner,  Sources  of  the  Law  of  England,  trans,  by  W.  Hastie  (Edin- 
burgh, 1888);    R.   K.  Wilson,  History  of  Modern  English  Law  (London. 
O.  W.  Holmi  ton,i88i);  and  A.  V  \Public 

Opinio))  in  i  teenth  Century  (London,  1905).     A  good  single- 

volume  history  of  the  law  is  E.  Jenks,  Short  History  of  the  English  La      Bo 
Convenient  introductions  to  both  the  history  andt  terof  the  law  arc  W.  M. 

Geldart,  lilt  wails  of  English  Low  (London  and  New  Vork.  ti  IF.  W.  Mail 

land  and  V.  C.  Montague,  Sketch  of  i  I.  !■;.  J,  L.  Colb) 

Vork,   1Q15).     Other  excellenl   introductoi  are  Maitland,  Lectures  on 

Equity  and  C.  S.   Kenny,   Outlines   of  Criminal 

York,  iqo;).     .V  1  English  law  in  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica 

'nth  ed.;,  IX,  600-607,  is  valuable  for  it-  brevity  and  clearness.     On  the  English 
conception  of  law  and  tin    1  anient  of  England,   II. 

Chaps.  l\i  brii.     !•',.  Jenks,  "English  Civil  Law,"  in  Hot      d  I  •     Rev.,  Nov 
C916,  is  an  illuminating  article.     'I  he  character  and  forms  itute  lavi  are 

authoritativi  in   llbert,   Legislative  Methods  and  Porms,  1-76.    The 

subject  of  judicial  legislation  is  discussed  lucidlj  in  Dicey,  Law  and  Public  Opinion 
in  England,  Led.  xi. 


LAW   AND   JUSTICE  211 

A  second   fact  is   that   the   continental  distinction  between 
ordinary  law  and  administrative  law  is  not  recognized  in  any 
part  of  the  United  Kingdom,  and  that,  therefore,  the  system  of 
ordinary  courts  is  not  paralleled,  as  it  is  in  France,  Italy,  and 
Germany,  by  a  set  of  administrative  tribunals.     Administrative 
law,   as  developed  in  the  continental  countries,  is  the  body  of 
rules  governing  the  adjudication  of  disputes  between  adminis- 
trative officers,  when  acting  in  their  public  capacity,  and  private 
citizens.     The  continental  view  is  that  questions  of  this  char- 
acter are  so  different  from  ordinary  civil  or  criminal  actions  that 
they  ought  to  be  handled  by  special  tribunals,  and  under  a  form 
of  procedure  at  once  more  flexible  and  more  effective  than  that 
prevailing  in  the  ordinary  courts;  and  in  France,  where  the 
idea  has  been  carried  farthest,  it  is  a  general  principle  of  law 
that  no  ordinary  court  shall  pass  upon  the  legality  of  any  admin- 
istrative act,  whether  the  question  arises  in  a  suit  against  the 
official  or  in  any  other  way.1     A  German  scholar  has  pointed 
out  that  the  Court  of  Star  Chamber  of  the  Tudor  period  went 
some  distance  toward  developing  such  a  system  in  England.2 
But  the  Long  Parliament,   at  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth 
century,   abolished  this  extraordinary  tribunal,   and  others  of 
its  kind;  and  thenceforth  administrative  cases  were  invariably 
heard  and  decided  by  the  ordinary  courts,  and  upon  the  ordinary 
principles  of  law.     Action  may  be  brought  against  the  state 
(nominally,  against  the  king),  with  its  consent,  to  obtain  resti- 
tution of,  or  compensation  for,  private  property  held  to  have 
been  taken  unlawfully,  or  to  be  due  under  contract.     Further- 
more, every  official,  save  only  the  king,  may  be  sued  for  a  tort, 
that  is,  on  a  charge  of  having  by  his  acts  inflicted  injury  on  the 
plaintiff.     If  he  can  show  that  the  acts  in  question  were  specifi- 
cally authorized  by  law,  or  even  that  they  fell  within  the  range 
of  discretion  allowed  him  by  law,  neither  the  official  nor  the  state 
is  legally  liable.     If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  does  not  appear  that 
there  was  due  authority,  the  plaintiff  is  entitled  to  redress  if  the 
court  awards  it  and  the  official  is  able  to  render  it.     Whether 
the  act  in  question  falls  within  the  authority  conferred  by  law 
is  for  the  court  to  determine.3 

1  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II,  407.     See  pp.  459-462  below. 

2Gneist,  Englisches  Verwaltungsrecht,  I,  389.  See  Maitland  and  Montague 
Sketch  of  English  Legal  History,  1 16-120,  and  Carter,  History  of  English  Legal 
Institutions,  Chap.  xiv.  . 

3  This  subject  is  surveyed  comparatively  in  R.  Bonnard,  Dcla  res  ponsibilite  civile 
des  pcrsonncs  publiques  et  de  lenrs  agents  en  Anglelerre,  aitx  Etats-Unis,  et  en  Allemagne 
(Paris,  1914). 


212  GOVERNMENTS  01    EUROPE 

A  third  fact  is  that  the  English  judicial  system,  while  still 
very  complex,  is  more  unified  than  that  of  the  United  Stales, 
and  is,  indeed,  almosl  as  highly  integrated  as  that  of  Fran 

Italy.  This  has  been  true  only  in  comparatively  recent  times. 
A  half  century  ago,  there  were  many  kinds  of  courts  tor  a  wide 
variety  of  purposes,  and  they  had  little  or  no  organic  relation 
one  with  another.  There  were  civil  courts  and  criminal  courts, 
courts  of  equity  and  courts  of  common  law,  probate  courts,  di- 
vorce courts,  ecclesiastical  courts,  and  what  not.  This  multi- 
plicity of  tribunals  enormously  complicated  the  work  of  judicial 
administration.  Many  cases  arose  in  which  it  was  difficult  to 
determine  which  court  had  jurisdiction;  each  class  of  tribunals 
had  its  peculiar  form  of  procedure,  and  even  the  trained  lawyer 
found  his  way  through  the  maze  with  difficulty.1  When  the 
situation  had  become  almost  intolerable,  a  great  series  of  acts 
was  at  last  put  on  the  statute  book  —  mainly  during  the  years 
1873-76  —  which  reconstructed  the  judicial  system  on  simpler 
and  more  logical  lines.  Practically  all  of  the  courts  except  those 
of  petty  jurisdiction  were  brought  together  in  a  single,  highly 
unified,  and  centralized  system.  Tribunals  which  had  been 
separate,  and  at  times  more  or  less  hostile,  became  branches  or 
subdivisions  of  a  single  Supreme  Court  of  Judicature ;  law  and 
equity  jurisdictions  were  combined  in  the  same  courts ;  the 
qualifications  of  the  House  of  Lord-  for  its  judicial  duties  were 
improved  by  the  addition  of  special  "law  lords";  the  work  of 
justice  in  all  of  its  phases  and  branches  was  toned  up  and  re- 
integrated. 

Finally,  all  judges  and  judicial  officers  are  appointed,  nom- 
inally by  the  king,  actually  by  the  Lord  High  Chancellor  (e.g., 
the  justices  of  the  peace  and  the  county  court  justices),  or  on  his 
recommendation  (e.g.,  the  puisne  judges  of  the  High  Court). 
Popular  election  of  judges,  which  prevailed  in  France  for  a 
short  time  in  the  era  of  the  Revolution,  and  is  common  in  the 
American  states,  never  commended  itself  to  the  English  mind. 
Tenure  is  for  good  behavior;  and  while  removals  can  be  made 
nominally  by  the  Lord  High  Chancellor,  acting  in  the  name  of 
the  crown,  in  practice  no  removals  take  place  except  on  the  joint 
request  of  the  two  houses  of  Parliament.  The  custom  which 
makes  the  "  king's  judges  "  thus  removable  only  by  legislative 
address  helps  give  balance  to  the  constitution,  and  the  judiciary 
is  noted  for  its  impartiality  and  independence. 

1  Willoughby,  Government  of  Modem  States,  371. 


LAW   AND   JUSTICE  213 

Criminal  Justice  and  Its  Agencies.1  —  It  would  be  wearisome 
to  describe  one  by  one  the  many  offices  and  courts  that  now 
make  up  the  English  judicial  system .  The  essential  facts  may 
better  be  brought  out  in  another  way,  namely,  by  sketching  the 
great  processes  by  which  criminal  and  civil  justice  is  actually 
administered.  For  practical  purposes,  all  cases  that  come  before 
English  courts  of  justice  may  be  classed  as  either  criminal  or 
civil ;  and  the  arrangement  of  the  courts,  and  their  procedure, 
is  largely  based  on  this  distinction.  By  criminal  cases  is  meant 
those  in  which  the  king  (that  is  to  say,  in  these  days,  the  govern- 
ment), acting  in  the  double  capacity  of  accuser  and  judge,  "  prose- 
cutes "  a  person  who  is  alleged  to  have  committed  an  offense, 
such  as  murder,  theft,  or  forgery,  in  order  that  the  offender  may 
be  punished.  The  difficulty  which  would  naturally  arise  from  the 
double  capacity  of  the  king  in  such  cases,  if  he  acted  in  person, 
is  got  over  by  the  fact  that  he  has  long  ceased  so  to  act,  and  that 
his  duties  in  each  capacity  are  now  performed  by  totally  distinct 
officials  —  by  the  law  officers  of  the  crown  or  other  prosecutors 
on  the  one  side,  and  by  "  His  Majesty's  judges  "  on  the  other. 

When  a  man  is  accused  of  having  committed  an  offense  he  is 
formally  summoned,  or  arrested  and  brought,  first  of  all,  before 
the  "  magistrates,"  i.e.,  one  or  more  of  the  justices  of  the  peace. 
The  office  of  justice  of  the  peace  dates  from  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury and  has  filled  a  large  place  in  the  development  of  adminis- 
trative and  judicial  practice.  The  normal  area  of  jurisdiction  of 
the  justices  is  the  county,  although  there  are  also  borough  jus- 
tices ;  and,  aside  from  various  persons  who  attain  the  office  on  an 
ex-officio  basis,  the  justices  in  any  given  county  are  appointed, 
"  at  the  pleasure  of  the  crown,"  by  the  Lord  High  Chancellor, 
usually  on  recommendation  of  the  lord  lieutenant  of  the  county, 
who  himself  is  chief  of  the  justices  and  keeper  of  the  county 
records.2  In  many  counties  the  list  of  justices  contains  three  or 
four  hundred  names.  But  some  of  the  appointees  do  not  take 
the  oath  required  to  qualify  them  for  magisterial  service,  and  the 
actual  work  is  performed  in  each  county  by  a  comparatively 
small  number  of  persons.  The  justices  serve  without  pay,  but 
the  office  carries  much  local  distinction,  and  appointments  are 

1  This  section  and  the  succeeding  one  are  based  on  the  excellent  account  given 
in  Jenks,  Government  of  the  British  Empire,  Chap.  xi.  It  should  be  observed  that 
the  system  described  is  that  of  England  alone,  although  that  of  Ireland  closely 
resembles  it. 

2  Until  1906  a  property  qualification  (ownership  of  land,  or  occupation  of  a  house, 
worth  £100  a  year)  was  required  of  all  save  certain  classes  of  appointees  whose 
station  was  deemed  a  sufficient  guarantee  of  fitness. 


214  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

widely  coveted.     A  large  proportion  of  the  appointees  would 
be  classed  as  country  gentlemen.1 

When  the  accused  is  brought  before  the  justice  of  the  peace 
the  duty  of  the  latter  is,  in  the  first  place,  merely  to  see  whether 
there  is  a  prima  facie  case  against  him.  For  this  purpose,  the 
magistrate  hears  the  evidence,  usually  sworn  testimony,  of  the 
prosecutor  and  his  witnesses.  There  is  00  jury,  and  the  accused 
need  not  make  any  statement  or  offer  any  defense  unless  he  likes. 
If,  after  the  hearing,  the  justice  feels  that  no  prima  facie  case  has 
been  made  out.  i.e.,  that  no  jury  would  convict  even  if  the  prose- 
cutor's evidence  were  unchallenged,  he  dismisses  the  charge,  and 
the  accused  goes  free.  If,  however,  he  thinks  that  a  prima  facie 
case  has  been  established,  he  "  commits  the  prisoner  for  trial," 
and  decides  whether  to  let  him  out  on  bail  or  to  have  him  confined 
to  await  farther  proceedings.  If  the  privilege  of  bail  is  refused, 
the  prisoner  may  apply,  by  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  to  a  judge  of 
the  High  Court  for  an  order  compelling  it  to  be  granted. 

The  court  in  which  the  trial  will  take  place  is  determined 
mainly  by  the  seriousness  of  the  case.  A  large  and  increasing 
number  of  offenses,  including  petty  assaults  and  thefts,  small 
breaches  of  public  order,  and  other  minor  misdemeanors  —  and 
even  graver  offenses  if  the  accused  wishes,  or  if  it  is  a  first  charge, 
or  if  he  is  under  age  —  are  "  punishable  on  summary  conviction." 
The  court  of  summary  conviction  is  composed  of  at  least  two 
justices  of  the  peace  (usually  resident  in  the  immediate  neigh- 
borhood), and  is  known  as  "  petty  session-."  The  trial  is  public 
and  without  a  jury,  and  the  accused  is  given  full  opportunity  to 
be  heard  and  to  introduce  counsel.  If  the  court  finds  the  man 
guilty  it  imposes  a  fine  or  a  limited  period  of  imprisonment ;  but 
he  may  appeal  to  the  "  quarter  sessions  "  of  all  the  justii 
the  county,  who  will  hear  his  case  again  from  beginning  to  end. 

In  graver  cases  the  accused  is  proceeded  against  by  formal 
"  indictment,"  or  written  statement  accusing  him  of  a  definite 
crime  committed  in  a  particular  way ;  and  he  is  entitled  to  a  copy 
of  this  indictment  before  his  trial.  An  indictment  case  is  tried 
either  before  quarter  sessions  or  before  a  judge  of  the  High  Court 
"  at  assizes,"  in  open  court,  usually  in  the  county  in  which  the 
offense  is  alleged  to  have  been  committed,  and  invariably  by 
jury.  Quarter  sessions  are  so  called  because  they  are  held  four 
times  a  year.     In  the  counties  they  comprise  all  the  justices  of  the 

1  Medley.  Manual  of  English  Constitutional  History,  302-400.  An  excellent 
monograph  is  C.  V  Beard,  "The  Office  of  Justice  of  the  Peace  in  I'ngland,"  in 
Columbia  Univ.  Studies  in  Hist.,  Econ.,  and  Pub.  Law,  XX.  No.  1  (New  York,  1904). 


LAW   AND   JUSTICE  215 

peace  for  the  county  who  care  to  take  part ;  and  all  who  sit  are 
entitled  to  vote  on  the  decisions.  The  assizes  courts  are  held 
three  times  a  year  in  all  counties  and  four  times  in  certain  cities ; 
and,  as  has  been  said,  they  are  presided  over  normally  by  a  judge 
of  the  High  Court  who  goes  out  "  on  circuit  "  for  the  purpose. 
Wherever  the  trial  takes  place,  the  accused  is  entitled  to  have 
his  fate  decided  by  a  jury  of  twelve  of  his  countrymen,  chosen  at 
random  by  the  sheriff  from  a  list  of  householders  compiled  by 
the  local  authorities ;  and  he  has  an  almost  unlimited  right  to 
"  challenge,"  i.e.,  to  object  to,  the  jurors  selected.  It  is  the 
business  of  the  judge  (or  judges)  throughout  the  trial  to  see  that 
the  rules  of  procedure  and  evidence  are  followed ;  and  after 
counsel  for  both  sides  have  completed  the  examination  of  wit- 
nesses and  have  addressed  the  jury,  the  presiding  judge  sums  up 
the  case  and  gives  the  jurors  any  instructions  about  the  law  that 
may  be  necessary  to  enable  them  to  arrive  at  a  verdict  on  the 
facts.  If  the  jury  finds  the  prisoner  not  guilty,  he  is  discharged 
at  once  ;  and  he  can  never  be  tried  on  the  same  accusation.  If  it 
finds  him  guilty,  the  judge  pronounces  the  sentence  provided  by 
law ;  although,  except  in  "  capital  "  cases,  he  has  considerable 
discretion  within  fixed  limits.  If  the  jury  cannot  agree,  there 
may  be  a  new  trial,  with  a  different  set  of  jurors. 

Formerly  there  was  no  appeal  from  the  verdict  of  a  jury  in  a 
criminal  trial,  although  appeal  lay  to  the  House  of  Lords  on 
points  of  law.  An  act  of  1907,  however,  set  up  a  Court  of 
Criminal  Appeal,  consisting  of  not  fewer  than  three  judges  of  the 
King's  (or  Queen's)  Bench ;  and  a  convicted  person  may  now, 
as  a  matter  of  right,  appeal  to  this  tribunal  on  any  question  of 
law,  and  (with  the  permission  of  either  the  judge  at  the  trial  or 
the  Court  of  Criminal  Appeal  itself)  on  any  question  of  fact,  e.g., 
that  the  verdict  of  the  jury  was  not  justified  by  the  evidence. 
If  the  appellate  court  thinks  there  has  been  a  serious  miscarriage 
of  justice  it  can  modify  the  sentence,  or  even  quash  the  conviction 
altogether.  There  can  be  no  farther  appeal  from  the  Court  of 
Criminal  Appeal,  except  to  the  House  of  Lords  upon  a  point  of 
law  which  one  of  the  "  law  officers  of  the  crown,"  the  Attorney- 
General,  certifies  to  be  of  public  importance.  Under  no  circum- 
stances can  the  prosecutor  appeal.1 

Civil  Proceedings.  —  A  civil  action  is  a  proceeding  brought 
by  a  private  citizen,  or  by  an  official  in  his  private  capacity,  to 

1  On  criminal  procedure  see  J.  D.  Lawson  and  E.  R.  Keedy,  "  Criminal  Procedure 
in  England,"  in  Amer.  Jour,  of  Crim.  Law  and  Criminology,  Nov.,  1910,  and  Jan., 
1911,  and  G.  G.  Alexander,  The  Administration  of  Justice  in  Criminal  Matters 
(Cambridge,  1915). 


2i6  G0VERNMEN1  S   OF    EUROPE 

obtain  redress  from  another  person,  official  or  private,  for  a 
wrong  slander,  trespass,  breach  of  contract,  infringement  of 
patents,  and  the  like  alleged  to  have  been  committed  againsl 
the  bringer  of  the  action,  or  "plaintiff,"  by  the  person  againsl 
whom  the  action  is  brought,  or  "  defendant."  In  matters  of  this 
kind  the  function  of  the  public  authorities  is  merely  to  judge,  i.e., 
to  determine  the  merits  of  the  controversy.  The  parties  may  at 
any  time  agree  to  compromise  and  end  the  controversy  out  of 
court,  as  can  never  be  done  in  criminal  proceedings. 

The  court  in  which  a  civil  action  will  be  brought  depends, 
in  the  first  instance,  on  the  amount  of  the  claim.  If  it  is  less 
than  £100,  or  if,  in  certain  cases,  the  value  of  the  property 
about  which  the  dispute  arises  is  not  more  than  £500.  the  suit 
will  probably  be  instituted  in  a  county  court.  The  county  courts 
of  the  present  day,  established  by  act  of  1846,  replace,  although 
they  are  not  historically  descended  from,  the  ancient  courts  of 
the  hundred  and  county.  They  are  known  as  county  courts, 
but  in  point  of  fact  the  area  of  their  jurisdiction  is  a  district 
which  not  only  is  smaller  than  the  county  but  bears  no  relation 
to  it.  There  are  in  England  at  present  some  five  hundred  of 
these  districts,  each  with  its  own  "  court  house,"  the  object 
being  to  bring  the  agencies  of  justice  close  to  the  people  and  so 
to  reduce  the  costs  and  delays  incident  to  litigation.  The  volume 
of  business  to  be  transacted  in  a  district  is  normally  insufficient 
to  occupy  a  judge  during  any  large  part  of  his  working  time,  and 
the  districts  are  grouped  in  some  fifty  circuits,  to  each  of  which 
is  assigned  by  the  Lord  Chancellor  one  judge  who  holds  court 
in  each  district  of  his  circuit  approximately  once  a  month.  The 
judges  are  paid  (£1500  a  year)  out  of  the  national  treasury  and 
hold  office  during  good  behavior.  Procedure  in  the  county 
court  is  simple,  and  frequently  the  case  is  conducted  by  the 
parties  in  person.  Where  the  amount  in  dispute  exceeds  £5 
either  party  may  demand  a  jury  (which  for  this  purpose  consists 
of  eight  persons)  ;  but  this  is  rarely  done.  Where  there  is  a  jury 
it  finds  a  verdict  on  the  facts  proved,  under  the  direction  of  the 
judge;  where  there  is  none  the  judge  decides  on  the  facts  and  on 
the  Law,  and  in  either  case  gives  a  judgment  for  the  plaintiff  or 
the  defendant,  which  is  enforced  by  seizure  of  the-  property  of 
the  party  who  fails  to  obey  it,  or  even  by  imprisonment.  The 
obje<  t  of  ch  il  proceedings  is,  however,  compensation,  not  punish- 
ment. There  can  be  no  appeal  from  the  court's  decision  on  a 
question  of  fad  ;  but  on  a  point  of  law  appeal  lies  to  a  "divi- 
sional "  sitting  of  the  High  Court  of  Justice,  at  which  two  judges 


LAW   AND   JUSTICE  217 

are  present.  In  cases  arising  out  of  workmen's  compensation 
and  some  other  matters,  appeals  on  questions  of  law  may  go  to 
the  Court  of  Appeal,  and,  ultimately,  to  the  House  of  Lords.1 

Where  the  plaintiff's  claim  exceeds  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
county  court  he  must,  and,  even  if  it  does  not,  he  may,  bring  his 
action  in  the  High  Court  of  Justice.  This  High  Court  is  the  lower 
chamber  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Judicature  provided  for  in 
1873  and  set  up  in  1875. 2  It  is  organized  in  three  "  divisions  " 
—  Chancery,  King's  Bench,  and  Probate,  Divorce,  and  Admi- 
ralty. In  theory,  any  kind  of  civil  action  can  be  begun  in  any 
one  of  these  divisions ;  and  there  is  no  limit  to  the  importance 
of  the  actions  that  may  be  tried  there.  In  practice,  each  divi- 
sion retains  the  kind  of  business  it  inherited  from  the  tribunals 
out  of  which  it  was  formed.  The  judges,  whose  number  is  vari- 
able, are  appointed  by  the  crown  on  nomination  of  the  Lord 
Chancellor  and  hold  office  during  good  behavior.  Under  vary- 
ing conditions,  too  complex  to  be  stated  here,  they  sit  singly 
and  in  groups  (although  never  as  one  body),  at  the  capital  and 
on  circuit.  There  is  no  appeal  on  a  question  of  fact  from  the 
judge  (or  jury,  if  there  be  one),  although  on  various  grounds,  e.g., 
that  the  verdict  was  unwarranted  by  the  evidence,  application 
for  a  new  trial  may  be  made  to  the  Court  of  Appeal,  which  is  the 
upper  chamber  of  the  above-mentioned  Supreme  Court  of  Judica- 
ture. Appeals  on  points  of  law  go  to  this  same  tribunal.  The 
Court  of  Appeal  consists  of  the  Lord  Chancellor,  three  other  high 
judicial  personages  sitting  by  ex-officio  right,  and  six  Lords  Justices 
of  Appeal  specially  appointed  by  the  crown  on  recommendation  of 
the  Lord  Chancellor ;  and  while  it  is  technically  a  single  court  it 
usually  sits  in  two  sections,  each  actually  consisting  of  three  of 
the  specially  appointed  justices.  The  sittings  are  held  at  Lon- 
don ;  no  witnesses  are  heard,  and  there  is  no  jury ;  and  the  busi- 
ness, chiefly  hearing  appeals  in  civil  cases  from  the  High  Court,  is 
exclusively  appellate;  the  decisions  take  the  form  of  affirmation, 
reversal,  or  alteration  of  the  judgment  of  the  lower  court. 

The  House  of  Lords  and  the  Judicial  Committee.  —  The 
dissatisfied  litigant  has  still  one  more  appeal,  if  he  can  stand  the 
delay  and  expense,  viz.,  to  the  House  of  Lords.  Starting  with 
control,   through    appeal,   over   the   courts   of   common   law  in 

1  S.  Rosenbaum,  "Studies  in  English  Civil  Procedure:  the  County  Courts," 
in  Pa.  Law  Rev.,  Feb.,  Mar.,  Apr.,  1916;  Report  of  the  Lord  Chancellor's  Committee 
on  the  County  Courts.     Cd.  431.     [919. 

2  Maitland  and  Montague,  Sketch  of  English  Legal  History,  164-170;  Carter, 
History  of  English  Legal  Institutions,  Chap,  xviii ;  Holdsworth,  History  of  English 
Laic,  I,  Chap.  viii. 


2i8  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

England,  this  body  in  time  acquired  a  similar  supremacy  in 
both  civil  and  criminal  action.-  over  all  British  and  Irish  tribu- 
nals (and  in  civil,  but  not  criminal,  actions  over  all  Scottish  tri- 
bunals) except  those  of  an  ecclesiastical  character.  In  1873  it 
was  proposed  to  abolish  this  control,  and  an  act  to  that  effect  was 
passed.  But,  on  the  understanding  that  there  would  be  an  altera- 
tion of  the  composition  of  the  chamber  when  sitting  as  a  court  of 
appeals,  the  measure  was  repealed  before  it  took  effect.  Pro- 
vision was  thereupon  made,  in  the  Appellate  Jurisdiction  Act  of 
1876,  for  two  (later  three,  four,  and  now  six)  salaried  life  peers 
to  be  selected  from  men  of  legal  eminence,  and  to  be  known  as 
Lords  of  Appeal  in  Ordinary.  No  judgment  can  be  rendered  on 
an  appeal  unless  at  least  three  "  law  lords  "  (these  life  members, 
together  with  all  hereditary  peers  who  hold,  or  have  held,  high 
judicial  office  l)  have  been  present  at  the  hearing  of  the  argu- 
ments, and  have  taken  part  in  the  decision.  Nominally,  judicial 
business  is  transacted  by  the  chamber  as  a  whole,  and  every 
member  has  a  right  not  only  to  be  present  but  to  participate  in 
the  decisions.  Actually,  it  is  transacted  by  the  little  group  of 
law  lords  under  the  presidency  of  the  Lord  Chancellor ;  and  the 
unwritten  rule  which  prohibits  the  presence  at  judicial  sessions 
of  any  persons  save  the  law  lords  is  quite  as  strictly  observed 
as  is  any  one  of  a  score  of  other  important  conventions  of  the 
constitution.  The  law  lords  may  sit  and  pronounce  judgments 
in  the  name  of  the  House  at  any  time,  regardless  of  whether 
Parliament  is  in  session.2  A  sitting  of  the  Court  is,  technically, 
a  sitting  of  the  House  of  Lords,  and  all  actions  are  entered  in  the 
Journal  as  a  part  of  the  chamber's  proceedings.3 

A  tribunal  of  great  and  growing  importance,  although,  practi- 
cally speaking,  it  does  not  hear  appeals  from  British  or  Irish 
courts,  is  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council.  This 
committee  was  created  in  1833  to  take  over  jurisdiction  (mainly, 
but  not  exclusively,  civil)  formerly  exercised,  in  a  rather  loose 
manner,  by  the  Council  as  a  whole.  The  members  include  the 
Lord  President  of  the  Privy  Council,  the  Lord  Chancellor,  the 
six  Lords  of  Appeal  in  Ordinary,   such   additional   members  of 

1  See  p.  143. 

'-'  When  Parliament  i  m  the  sittings  of  the  law  lords  arc  held,  as  a  rule, 

prior  to  the  beginning  of  the  regular  1  130  p.m. 

3The  judicial  functions  of  Parliament  are  described  at  some  length  in  Anson 
Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  I,  ( !hap.  be.  The  principal  work  on  the  subject 
i  C.  H.  Mi  Dwain,  The  High  Court  of  Parliament  and  Us  Supremacy  (New  Haven, 
1910).  On  the  House  of  Lords  as  a  court  see  MacDonaugh,  Book  of  Parliament, 
300-300;  A.  T.  Carter,  History  of  English  Legal  Institutions  (London,  1902), 
96-109;  and  W.  S.  Holdsworth,  History  of  English  Law,  I,  170-193. 


LAW  AND   JUSTICE  219 

the  Council  as  hold  (or  have  held)  high  judicial  office,  and  not 
more  than  seven  judges  of  the  superior  colonial  courts,  and  two 
of  the  superior  Indian  courts,  provided  they  are  members  of  the 
Privy  Council.  The  most  active  members  are  the  six  "  law 
lords  " ;  so  that  in  its  working  personnel  the  Judicial  Committee 
does  not  differ  markedly  from  the  House  of  Lords  when  sitting 
as  a  court.  The  Committee's  function  is  to  hear  appeals  from 
the  ecclesiastical  courts,  from  prize  courts,  from  courts  in  the 
Channel  Islands  and  the  Isle  of  Man,  from  the  courts  of  the 
colonies  and  dependencies,  and  from  English  courts  established 
by  treaty  in  foreign  countries.  Technically,  the  body  is  not  a 
court,  but  only  a  committee  of  the  King's  Council  to  receive 
and  hear  petitions,  and  its  findings  take  the  form,  not  of  court 
decisions,  but  recommendations  to  the  crown  to  grant  or  refuse 
the  petitions  or  appeals.  These  recommendations,  however, 
have  the  practical  effect  of  court  decisions.  Unlike  the  decisions 
of  the  House  of  Lords,  they  must  represent  a  unanimous  opinion 
of  the  judges  (not  under  three)  who  have  heard  the  case.  Ap- 
peals come  to  the  Committee  from  the  four  quarters  of  the  earth 
and  require  for  their  proper  consideration  a  knowledge  of  the 
most  diverse  systems  of  law.  It  must  be  conceded  that  the  plan 
is  not  popular  in  the  self-governing  colonies.  Two  or  three 
unsuccessful  attempts  to  restrict  it  have  been  made  in  Canada. 
The  constitution  of  Australia,  as  first  drafted,  provided  that 
there  should  be  no  such  appeals  on  constitutional  questions 
except  as  sanctioned  by  the  High  Court  of  the  Commonwealth, 
and  that  appeals  on  all  other  kinds  of  questions  might  be  cut  off  by 
colonial  legislation.  The  authorities  at  London  objected,  and  the 
right  of  appeal  (with,  however,  some  important  limitations)  sur- 
vives in  the  great  southern  dominion.  Appeals  from  the  courts 
of  all  of  the  self-governing  colonies  are,  however,  infrequent.1 

1  The  Privy  Council,  in  its  general  aspects,  is  described  above  (see  p.  93). 
For  general  accounts  of  the  English  judicial  system  see  Lowell,  Government  of  Eng- 
land, II,  Chaps,  lix-lx ;  Jenks,  Government  of  the  British  Empire,  Chap,  xi ;  Anson, 
Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  II,  Pt.  i,  136-140,  147-150;  Macy,  English 
Constitution,  Chap  vii.  As  is  stated  elsewhere  (p.  210),  the  first  volume  of  Holds- 
worth's  History  of  English  Law  contains  an  excellent  history  of  the  English  courts. 
Perhaps  the  best  brief  account  of  the  historical  development  of  the  judicial  system 
is  A.  T.  Carter,  History  of  English  Legal  Institutions  (4th  ed.,  London,  1910). 
Mention  may  be  made  of  Maitland,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  462-484, 
and  Medley,  Manual  of  English  Constitutional  History,  2,^-2>^3-  T^'o  valuable 
works  by  continental  writers  are  C.  de  Eranqueville,  Le  systeme  judiciaire  de  la 
Grande-Bretagne  (Paris,  1898),  and  H.  B.  Gerland,  Die  englische  Gcrichlsvcrfassung; 
eine  systematische  Darstellung,  2  vols.  (Leipzig,  19 10).  A  large  amount  of  precise 
information  on  the  actual  workings  of  the  judicial  system  can  be  obtained  from  E. 
A.  Parry,  The  Law  and  the  Poor  (New  York,  1914).  The  author  of  this  book  was 
for  twenty  years  an  English  county  court  judge. 


CHAPTER   XIIT 

LOCAL    GOVERNMENT 

Stages  of  Development.  —  An  important  —  in  some  respects 
the  most  important  —  part  of  any  system  of  government  is  the 
agencies  and  modes  by  which  the  authority  of  the  state  is  brought 
close  home  to  the  people,  and  by  which  the  people  themselves, 
In  their  several  communities,  control  their  own  interests  and 
affairs  —  in  a  word,  the  machinery  of  local  government  and 
administration.  The  history  of  local  institutions  in  England 
covers  an  enormous  stretch  of  time,  as  well  as  a  remarkable 
breadth  of  public  organization  and  activity;  and  by  no  means 
its  least  striking  phases  are  those  that  have  appeared  in  com- 
paratively recent  years.  Speaking  broadly,  it  may  be  said  to 
fall  into  five  very  unequal  periods.  The  first,  extending  from  the 
settlement  of  the  Saxons  to  the  Norman  Conquest,  was  marked 
by  the  establishment  of  the  distinctive  English  units  of  local 
political  organization  —  shire,  hundred,  township,  and  parish  — 
and  by  the  fixing  of  the  principle  of  popular  local  control.  The 
second,  extending  from  the  Conquest  to  the  fourteenth  century, 
was  characterized  by  a  general  increase  of  central  control  and  a 
corresponding  decrease  of  local  autonomy.1  The  third,  extending 
from  the  fourteenth  century  to  the  adoption  of  the  Municipal 
Corporations  Act  of  1835,  was  preeminently  a  period  of  aristo- 
cratic management  of  local  affairs,  of  government  by  the  same 
squirearchy  that  prior  to  1832,  if  not  indeed  1867,  was  accus- 
tomed to  dominate  Parliament.  The  fourth,  covering  the  years 
between  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  and  the  Loral  Govern- 
ment Act  of  1888,  was  a  period  of  democratic  self-government 
in  the  boroughs,  but  of  continued  aristocratic  domination  in  the 
rural  areas.  The  last  period,  that  from  1888  to  the  present, 
saw  the  democratization  of  rural  local  government,  the  farther 
simplification  of  the  administrative  system,  and  also  a  tendency 
toward  increased  central  control. 

The  system  as  it  operates  to-day  is  less  symmetrical,  and  less 
easy  to  describe,  than  that  of  France,  Italy,  and  other  conti- 

1  See  p.  5. 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  221 

nental  states ;  it  is  considerably  more  complicated  than  that  of 
most  parts  of  the  United  States.  But,  as  a  result  of  the  great 
reforms  of  the  last  two  periods  mentioned,  it  has  an  orderliness 
and  simplicity  that  were  altogether  lacking  fifty  years  ago. 
The  variety  of  areas  of  administration  has  been  lessened,  the 
number  of  officials  has  been  reduced  and  their  relations  have 
been  made  more  clear,  the  guiding  hand  of  central  authorities 
in  local  affairs  has  been  strengthened.  Moreover,  the  local  insti- 
tutions of  Scotland  and  Ireland,  while  formerly  very  different 
from  those  of  England,  have  been  brought  into  general  con- 
formity with  English  organization  and  usage. 

Local  Government  before  1832.  —  The  transformation  wrought 
in  the  old,  aristocratic,  and  complicated  plan  of  local  government 
paralleled,  and  was  profoundly  affected  by,  the  democratization 
of  Parliament  during  the  last  three  quarters  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  Two  periods  of  change  are  especially  noteworthy, 
the  one  following  closely  the  Reform  Act  of  1832  and  culminating 
in  the  adoption  of  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  of  1835,  the 
other  following  similarly  the  Representation  of  the  People  Act 
of  1884  and  attaining  fruition  in  the  Local  Government  Act  of 
1888  and  the  District  and  Parish  Councils  Act  of  1894. 

At  the  opening  of  the  century  rural  administration  was  carried 
on  principally  in  the  shire,  or  county,  and  the  civil,  or  "  poor-law," 
parish ;  urban  administration  in  the  corporate  towns,  or  munici- 
pal boroughs.  The  counties  were  fifty-two  in  number.  Most 
of  them  were  of  Saxon  origin,  although  some  were  the  product 
of  administrative  reorganizations  of  later  centuries.  The  last 
to  be  created  were  those  of  Wales.  From  Saxon  times  to  the 
fourteenth  century  the  dominating  figure  in  county  administra- 
tion was  the  sheriff.  But  in  the  reign  of  Edward  III  justices  of 
the  peace  were  created,  into  whose  hands,  during  the  ensuing 
five  hundred  years,  substantially  all  administrative  and  judicial 
affairs  of  the  county  were  drawn.  These  justices  were  appointed 
by  the  crown,  chiefly  from  the  ranks  of  the  smaller  landowners 
and  rural  clergy.  The  people  of  the  county  had  no  effective 
control  over  them ;  and,  being  men  of  more  or  less  aristocratic 
temper,  the  officials  strongly  tended  to  become  a  petty  oligarchy, 
whose  management  of  local  affairs  was  inspired  mainly  by  a  desire 
to  promote  the  interests  of  their  class. 

The  principal  division  of  the  county  was  the  civil  parish, 
usually,  but  not  always,  identical  with  the  ecclesiastical  parish, 
and  derived  from  the  ancient  township,  or  agricultural  settle- 
ment of  small  peasant  farmers,  self-supporting,  cooperative,  and 


GOVERNMENTS  01    EUROPE 

isolated  in  the  midst  of  its  open  fields.  The  governing  bodies 
of  the  parish  were  two  the  vestry  (either  open  to  all  rate- 
payers or  composed  of  elected  representatives),  which  had 
general  powers  of  administration,  and  the  overseers  of  the  poor, 
who,  under  the  Elizabethan  statuteof  1601,  were  empowered  to 
find  employment  for  the  able-bodied  poor,  to  provide  other  forms 
of  relief  as  should  be  required,  and  to  levy  a  local  rate  to  meet 
the  costs  of  their  work.  Since  17X2.  however,  the  parishes  had 
been'arranged  in  groups  for  poor-law  purposes,  and  boards  of 
guardians  appointed  for  these  larger  poor-law  areas  by  the 
justices  of  the  peace  had  come  to  be  the  real  authorities  in  the 
administration  of  poor  relief,  as  well  as  in  most  other  matters.1 
The  abuses  arising  from  poor-law  administration  were  frequently 
appalling. 

The  corporate  towns  in  England  and  Wales  numbered,  in 
[832,  246.  They  comprised  population  centers  which,  on  the 
of  charters  granted  by  the  crown,  had  become  distinct 
areas  of  local  government.  They  did  not,  however,  stand 
entirely  apart  from  the  county  and  parish  organizations;  except 
in  so  far  as  they  were  specifically  exempted  by  the  terms  of  their 
charters,  they  were  subject  to  the  authority  of  the  justices  of 
the  peace  and  of  the  governing  agencies  of  the  parishes  within 
whose  jurisdiction  they  lay.  Their  form  of  government  was 
determined  mainly  by  the  provisions  of  their  charters,  and  since 
these  instruments  were  drawn  on  no  fixed  principles,  uniformity 
of  organization  was  entirely  lacking.  As  a  rule,  however,  the 
borough  was  a  close  corporation,  and  the  burgesses,  or  "  free- 
men," in  whom  were  vested  peculiar  trading  and  fiscal  rights, 
together  with  an  absolute  monopoly  of  the  powers  of  government, 
formed  only  a  small  fraction  of  the  general  body  of  residents. 
The  governing  authority  of  the  borough  was  a  council,  whose 
members  were  either  elected  by  the  freemen  or  recruited  by 
cooptation.  Government  was  almost  always  oligarchical  and 
irresponsible ;  usually  it  was  inefficient,  and  frequently  it  was 
corrupt. 

The  Municipal  Corporations  Act  (1835).  — The  Revolu- 
tionary and  Napoleonic  period  brought  changes  which  liberalized 
and  strengthened  local  government  —  especially  municipal 
government  —  in  France,  Prussia,  and  other  continental  coun- 
tries.    But  in  England  the  old  system  remained  as  firmly  in- 

1  "Poor  relief,"  it  has  been  aptly  remarked,  "is  really  the  historic  I  b 
modern  local  government  in  England."     Jcnks,  Government  of  the  British  Empire, 
308. 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT 


223 


trenched  as  ever.  There  was  considerable  demand  for  reform ; 
and  in  many  of  those  towns  that  were  most  affected  by  the 
industrial  revolution  the  "  corporations  "  proved  totally  inca- 
pable of  handling  the  new  problems  of  administration,  so  that 
Parliament  was  obliged  to  create  or  authorize  special  com- 
missions and  boards  to  make  provision  for  water  supply,  sewer- 
age, public  lighting,  and  other  necessary  services.1  But,  like 
every  other  sort  of  reform,  the  reconstruction  of  local  govern- 
ment on  democratic  lines  was  held  back  by  the  reaction  produced 
in  England  by  the  continental  upheaval ;  and  when  at  length 
the  nation  was  sufficiently  recovered  from  its  fright  to  turn  its 
thought  once  more  to  political  reorganization,  the  question  of 
local  government  reform  was  compelled  to  await  the  culmina- 
tion of  the  more  important  and  more  absorbing  agitation  for 
the  reform  of  Parliament. 

The  Reform  Act  of  1832  at  once  cleared  the  way  for,  and  gave 
a  mighty  impetus  to,  the  regeneration  of  local  government. 
The  first  reformed  parliament  lost  no  time  in  turning  attention 
to  the  subject.  In  1833  it  passed  an  act  reorganizing  borough 
government  in  Scotland,  and  late  in  the  same  year  it  caused  a 
royal  commission  to  be  appointed  to  make  a  study  of  borough 
government  in  England  and  Wales.  In  1834  it  passed  a  Poor 
Law  Amendment  Act,  which  abolished  outdoor  relief  for  the 
able-bodied,  provided  for  the  regrouping  of  the  parishes  in 
poor-law  unions,  placed  the  administration  of  relief  in  those 
unions  in  the  hands  of  boards  of  guardians  composed  in  part 
of  justices  of  the  peace  and  in  part  of  members  specially  elected 
by  the  ratepayers,  and  established  a  national  Poor  Law  Com- 
mission for  purposes  of  general  supervision.  After  a  thorough 
investigation,  which  brought  to  light  astounding  failures  and 
irregularities  in  the  administration  of  municipal  affairs,  the 
royal  commission  of  1833  presented  its  report.2  Evidence  of 
the  need  of  action  was  overpowering,  and  a  bill  brought  in  by 
Lord  John  Russell  encountered  only  perfunctory  opposition 
in  the  House  of  Commons.  The  House  of  Lords  sought  to  stay 
the  course  of  change,  but  succeeded  only  in  forcing  certain 
amendments,  and  in  the  autumn  of  1835  the  measure  took  its 
place  on  the  statute  book  as  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act. 

The   new   law   applied    to   one   hundred    and    seventy-eight 

1  W.  B.  Munro,  Government  of  European  Cities  (New  York,  1909),  213. 

2  This  report  was  published  in  April,  1835,  in  five  volumes.  The  first  volume 
contains  the  report  proper;  the  other  four  present  the  evidence  on  which  it  was 
based.  In  1837  a  separate  report  was  submitted,  dealing  with  the  government  of 
London. 


224  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

boroughs  in  England  and  Wales.  Many  minor  municipalities, 
including  about  seventy  of  the  preexisting  boroughs,  were  not 
covered;  and  London  was  left  to  be  dealt  with  by  separate 
legislation.1  I>ut  the  legal  stain-,  the  powers,  and  the  form  of 
government  of  all  boroughs  to  which  the  measure  applied  were 
nade  uniform;  and  the  conditions  under  which  new  municipal 
charters  should  be  granted  were  duly  prescribed.  The  corpora- 
tion was  henceforth  to  be  "  the  legal  personification  of  the  local 
community,  elected  by,  acting  for,  and  responsible  to  the  inhabit- 
ants "  ;  and  the  governing  organ  was  to  be  a  council  composed  of 
members  chosen  for  a  three-year  term  by  the  equal  and  direct 
votes  of  all  the  local  taxpayers.  The  sphere  of  municipal 
administration  was  defined,  and  fresh  powers  to  raise  and  spend 
money,  to  dispose  of  municipal  property,  and  to  make  ordinances 
were  conferred. 

With  the  adoption  of  this  important  measure  local  govern- 
ment reform  came  to  a  halt,  leaving  the  widely  assailed  system 
of  county  government  intact.  The  abuses  of  the  old  order  were, 
if  not  greater,  at  all  events  more  glaring  in  the  towns  than  in  the 
counties ;  besides,  the  most  determined  opponents  of  change 
were  the  aristocratic  landholders.  Hence  it  was  natural  that, 
just  as  parliamentary  elections  were  democratized  first  in  the 
towns,  the  reform  of  local  government  should  proceed  faster  in 
the  urban  than  in  the  rural  communities.  In  point  of  fact,  suc- 
cessive amending  statutes  paved  the  way  for  the  great  Munici- 
pal Corporations  Consolidation  Act  of  1882,  which  put  English 
municipal  government  on  substantially  its  present  basis,  before 
any  noteworthy  changes  whatsoever  in  county  government  had 
taken  place.2 

Mid-Century  Confusion  of  Areas  and  Jurisdictions.  — 
Throughout  the  earlier  and  middle  Victorian  period  legislation 
relating  to  local  government  was  voluminous,  but  most  of  it  was 
special  rather  than  general.  It  pertained  principally  to  the  care 
of  highways  and  burial  grounds,  the  establishment  and  organiza- 
tion of  districts  for  the  promotion  of  sanitation,  the  creation  of 

1  See  p.  236. 

2  The  history  of  English  local  institutions  to  1835  is  dealt  with  in  detail  in  H.  A. 
Merewether  and  A.  J.  Stephens,  History  of  the  Boroughs  and  Municipal  Corporations 
of  the  United  Kingdom,  3  vols.  (London,  1835),  and  in  S.  and  B.  Webb,  English 
Local  Government  from  the  Revolution  to  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act,  3  vols. 
(London  and  New  York,  1004-08).  The  first  of  these  works  was  written  to  pro- 
mote the  1  ause  of  munii  ipaJ  reform,  but  is  temperate  and  reliable.  The  second  is 
especially  exhaustive,  volume  iii  containing  probably  the  best  existing  treatment 
of  the  history  of  borough  government.  For  a  brief  account  see  May  and  Holland, 
Constitutional  History  of  England,  II,  Chap.  xv. 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  225 

"  improvement  act  "  districts,  and,  notably,  the  erection  and 
administration  of  school  districts  under  the  Forster  Education 
Act  of  1870.  With  each  successive  measure  the  confusion  of 
jurisdictions  and  agencies  increased.  The  prevailing  policy  was 
to  provide  for  each  fresh  need  as  it  arose  by  creating  special 
machinery  to  meet  that  particular  need,  and  the  arrangements 
made  were  seldom  or  never  uniform  throughout  the  country,  nor 
did  they  bear  any  logical  relation  to  arrangements  already 
existing  for  other  purposes.  By  187 1  the  country,  as  Lowell 
puts  it,  was  divided  into  counties,  unions,  and  parishes,  and 
spotted  over  with  boroughs  and  with  highway,  burial,  sanitary, 
improvement  act,  school,  and  other  districts,  and  of  these  areas 
none  save  the  parishes  and  unions  bore  any  necessary  relation 
to  any  of  the  rest.1  In  the  effort  to  adapt  the  administrative 
system  to  the  fast  changing  conditions  of  a  rapidly  growing 
population,  Parliament  piled  act  upon  act,  the  result  being  a 
sheer  jungle  of  interlacing  jurisdictions,  baffling  to  the  student 
and  fatal  to  orderly  and  economical  administration.  It  is  com- 
puted that  in  1883  there  were  in  England  and  Wales  no  fewer  than 
27,069  independent  local  authorities,2  and  that  the  ratepayer 
was  liable  for  eighteen  different  kinds  of  taxes. 

The  Local  Government  Act  (1888)  and  the  District  and  Parish 
Councils  Act  (1894).  —  The  Education  Act  of  1870  may  be  said 
to  have  marked  the  end  of  the  sheer  multiplication  of  local  gov- 
ernment jurisdictions.  Already  the  need  of  simplification  and 
consolidation  was  widely  recognized.  In  1871  the  Poor  Law 
Board  (which  superseded  the  Poor  Law  Commission  in  1847) 
was  converted  into  the  Local  Government  Board,  with  the 
purpose  of  concentrating  in  a  single  department  the  supervision 
of  the  laws  relating  to  public  health,  the  relief  of  the  poor,  and 
local  government;  and  when,  in  1872,  the  entire  country  was 
divided  into  urban  and  rural  sanitary  districts,  the  work  was 
done  in  such  a  way  as  to  involve  the  least  possible  addition  to 
the  existing  complexities  of  the  administrative  system.3  The 
two  measures,  however,  which,  in  the  main,  brought  order  out  of 

1  Government  of  England,  II,  135. 

2  These  included  the  52  counties,  the  239  municipal  boroughs,  the  70  improve- 
ment-act districts,  the  1006  urban  sanitary  districts,  the  577  rural  sanitary  districts 
the  2051  school-board  districts,  the  424  highway  districts,  the  853  burial-board 
districts,  the  649  poor-law  unions,  the  14,946  poor-law  parishes,  the  5064  highway 
parishes  not  included  in  urban  or  highway  districts,  and  the  1300  ecclesiastical 
parishes.  For  the  situation  in  1888  see  G.  L.  Gomme,  Lectures  on  the  Principles 
of  Local  Government  (London,  1897),  12-13. 

3  The  arrangements  made  at  this  time  were  continued  in  the  great  Public  Healtn 
Act  of  1875.     Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II,  137. 


226  GOVERNMENTS   01    El  ROPE 

confusion  were  the  Local  Government  Act  of  1888  and  the  Dis- 
trict and  Parish  Councils  Act  of  1  So  1 .  The  first  of  these,  com- 
monly referred  to  as  the  County  Councils  Act,  was  the  sequel 
of  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  of  [882  and  the  Representa 
tion  of  the  People  Acl  of  [884,  being  designed  to  apply  the 
principles  of  the  reformed  borough  system  to  county  govern- 
ment, and  at  the  same  time  to  invest  the  newly  enfranchised 
rural  population  with  a  larger  control  of  county  affairs.  The 
act  created  sixty-two  administrative  counties  (some  being 
coterminous  with  the  preexisting  historic  counties,  others  being 
subdivisions  of  them),  and  sixty-one  "  county  boroughs,"  which 
were  towns  of  more  than  50,000  inhabitants.1  In  each  county 
and  county  borough  was  set  up  a  council,  whose  members  were 
mainly  (at  least  two  thirds  of  them)  elective,  and  to  this  council 
were  transferred  the  administrative  functions  of  the  justices 
of  the  peace,  leaving  to  these  survivors  of  the  old  regime  little 
authority  save  of  a  judicial  character. 

The  democratization  of  rural  government  thus  begun  by  the 
Conservative  ministry  of  Lord  Salisbury  in  1888  was  carried  to 
completion  by  the  District  and  Parish  Councils  Act,  sponsored 
by  the  Liberal  ministries  of  Gladstone  and  Rosebery  in  1894.2 
This  measure  provided  (1)  that  every  county  should  be  divided 
into  districts,  urban  and  rural,  and  every  district  into  parishes, 
and  (2)  that  in  every  district,  and  in  every  rural  parish  with 
more  than  three  hundred  inhabitants,  there  should  be  an  elected 
council,  while  in  the  smallest  parishes  there  should  be  a  primary 
assembly  composed  of  all  persons  whose  names  appeared  on  the 
local  government  and  parliamentary  register.  To  the  parish 
councils  and  assemblies  were  transferred  all  of  the  civil  functions 
of  the  vestries,  leaving  to  those  bodies  the  control  of  ecclesiastical 
matters  only ;  while  to  the  district  councils,  whether  rural  or  ur- 
ban, were  committed  control  of  sanitary  affairs  and  highways. 

The  effect  of  the  acts  of  1888  and  1894  was  twofold.  In  the 
first  place,  they  put  the  local  affairs  of  the  rural  portions  of  the 
country  in  the  hands  of  popularly  elected  bodies.  In  the  second 
place,  their  adoption  afforded  opportunity  for  the  immediate  or 
gradual  abolition  of  all  local  governing  authorities  except  the 
county,  municipal,  district,  and  parish  councils,  the  boards  of 
guardians,   and  the  school  boards,   and   thus  they  contributed 

1  The  number  of  county  boroughs  was  gradually  raised  until  in  iqio  it  was 
eighty-two.     See  p.  2,-;3- 

2  It  should  be  observed  that  the  original  intent  in  1888  was  to  deal  with  district 
as  well  as  county  organization.  As  finally  passed,  the  law  of  that  year  had  to  do 
only,  however,  with  the  counties. 


LOCAL   GOVERNMENT  227 

vastly  to  that  gradual  simplification  of  the  local  governing 
system  which  is  one  of  the  most  satisfactory  developments  of 
recent  years.  The  act  of  1894  alone  abolished  some  8000 
authorities.  Since  that  date  the  consolidation  of  authorities 
and  the  elimination  of  areas  have  been  carried  considerably 
farther,  the  most  notable  step  being  the  abolition  of  the  school 
districts  by  the  Education  Act  of  1902  and  the  transfer  of  the 
functions  of  the  school  boards  to  the  councils  of  the  counties, 
boroughs,  and  districts.  Both  majority  and  minority  reports 
submitted  by  the  Poor  Law  Commission  in  1909  recommended 
the  abolition  of  the  poor-law  union,  although  action  was  not 
taken  on  the  subject.1 

Local  Government  To-day :  Central  Control.  —  The  system 
of  local  government  as  it  operates  at  the  present  time  is  by  no 
means  free  from  anomalies.  It  presents,  none  the  less,  an 
orderliness  and  simplicity  altogether  lacking  a  few  decades  ago. 
The  variety  of  areas  of  administration  has  been  lessened,  the 
number  of  officials  has  been  reduced  and  their  relations  have 
been  simplified,  the  guiding  hand  of  the  central  authorities  in 
local  affairs  has  been  strengthened.  Stated  briefly,  the  situa- 
tion is  as  follows:  the  entire  kingdom  is  divided  into  counties 
and  county  boroughs ;  the  counties  are  subdivided  into  districts, 
rural  and  urban,  and  boroughs  ;  these  are  subdivided  further  into 
parishes,  which  are  regrouped  in  poor-law  unions ;  while  the  city 
of  London  is  organized  after  a  fashion  of  its  own.  In  order  to 
make  clear  the  essentials  of  the  system,  it  will  suffice  to  allude 
briefly  to  the  connection  between  the  local  and  central  adminis- 
trative agencies,  and  to  point  out  the  important  features  of  each 
of  the  principal  governmental  units  named. 

In  most  stages  of  its  history  English  local  government  has 
been  carried  on  with  a  smaller  amount  of  interference  and  of 
direction  on  the  part  of  the  central  authorities  than  have  the 
local  governments  of  the  various  continental  states.  Even 
to-day  the  general  government  is  not  present  in  county  or  borough 
in  any  such  sense  as  that  in  which  the  French  government,  in 
the  person  of  the  prefect,  is  present  in  the  department,  or  the 
Prussian,  through  the  agency  of  the  "  administration,"  is  present 
in  the  Regierungsbezirk,  or  district.  A  noteworthy  aspect  of 
English  administrative  reform  during  the  past  three  quarters 

1  See  p.  232.  The  history  of  local  government  changes  since  1870  is  told  more 
fully  in  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  III,  Chap.  v.  The 
complexity  that  still  exists  is  emphasized  in  L.  Gomme,  "The  Chaos  of  Local 
Government,"  in  Conlcmp.  Rev.,  Mar.,  1913. 


228  GOVERNMEN  IS  oi     EI  ROPE 

of  .t  century  has  been,  nevertheless,  a  Large  increase  of  centralized 
control,  if  not  of  technical  centralization,  in  relation  to  poor 
relief,  education,  finance,  health,  and  th<  other  varied  functions 
oi  the  local  governing  bodies.  There  are  to-day  five  ministerial 
departments  which  exercise,  in  greater  or  lesser  measure,  this 
kind  of  control.  One,  the  Home  Office,  has  special  surveillance 
of  police  and  of  factory  inspection.  A  second,  the  Hoard  of 
Education,  directs  and  supervises  all  educational  agencies  whii  h 
are  aided  by  public  funds.  A  third,  the  Board  of  Agriculture, 
supervises  the  enforcement  of  laws  relating  to  markets  and  to 
diseases  of  animals.  A  fourth,  the  Board  of  Trade,  investigates 
and  approves  enterprises  relating  to  the  supply  of  water,  gas,  and 
electricity,  and  to  other  forms  of  "  municipal  trading."  The 
fifth,  and  most  important  of  all,  was,  until  1919,  the  Local 
Government  Board,  which  managed  the  execution  of  the  poor 
laws  and  the  activities  of  the  local  health  authorities,  supervised 
the  financial  operations  of  the  local  bodies,  and  discharged  other 
regulative  and  supervisory  functions  too  extensive  to  be  enumer- 
ated. As  has  been  explained,  the  statute  of  1919  which  created 
the  Ministry  of  Health,  abolished  the  Local  Government  Board, 
or  —  to  speak  more  accurately  —  absorbed  its  functions  in  those 
of  the  new  department.  The  fifth  central  regulating  department 
is  now,  therefore,  the  Ministry  of  Health,  which,  until  certain 
contemplated  readjustments  are  made,  will  exercise  the  func- 
tions, in  general,  of  the  former  Board,  in  addition  to  a  highly 
specialized  control  of  everything  that  relates  to  local  health 
matters.1  The  powers  of  these  departments  over  local  affairs 
are  exercised  in  a  number  of  ways,  but  chiefly  through  orders 
and  regulations,  assent  to  or  disallowance  of  measures  passed 
or  proposed  by  the  local  bodies,  and  expert  advice  and  guidance. 
It  need  hardly  be  added  that  the  powers  and  functions  of  the 
local  authorities  are  subject  at  all  times  to  control  by  parlia- 
mentary legislation.2 

Areas  of  Rural  Local  Government :  the  County.  —  Since  the 
Local  Government  Act  of  1888  was  passed,  there  have  been  two 
kinds  of  counties  in  England.     There  are,  in  the  first  place,  the 

1  See  p.  87. 

2  On  the  relations  between  the  central  and  local  agencies  of  L'nvernmcnt  see 
Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II,  Chap,  xlvi;  P.  Ashley,  /.<«<//  and  Central 
Government  (London,  roo6),  Chap,  i;  J.  Redlich  and  F.  W.  Hirst,  Local  Government 
hi  England  (London,  1003),  II,  Pt.  vi ;  M.  R.  Maltbie,  English  Local  Government 
of  To-day,  a  Sttidy  of  the  Relations  of  Central  and  l.mal  Government  (New  York, 
1897);  and  G.  T,  Reid,  Origin  and,  Development  of  Public  Administration  in  England 
(London,  1913).  The  tendency  to  centralization  i>  studied  in  J.  Raiga,  Mouvement 
de  centralisation  administrative  et  financiere  en  Angleterre  (Paris,  1913). 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  229 

historic  counties,  fifty-two  in  number,  which  survive  as  areas  for 
parliamentary  elections,  the  organization  of  the  militia,  and  the 
administration  of  justice.  Their  officials  —  the  lord  lieutenant, 
the  sheriff,1  and  the  justices  of  the  peace  —  are  appointed, 
directly  or  indirectly,  by  the  crown.  Much  more  important, 
however,  are  the  administrative  counties,  now  sixty-two  in 
number,  created  and  regulated  by  the  local  government  legisla- 
tion of  1888  and  1894.  Six  of  these  administrative  counties 
coincide  geographically  with  ancient  counties,  while  most  of  the 
remaining  ones  represent  no  wide  variation  from  the  historic 
areas  upon  which  they  are  based.  They  do  not  include  the 
eighty-two  county  boroughs  which  are  situated  within  them,2 
but  they  do  include  all  non-county  boroughs  and  all  urban 
districts,  so  that  they  are  by  no  means  altogether  rural.  They 
are  extremely  unequal  in  size  and  population,  the  smallest  being 
Rutland  with  19,709  inhabitants  and  the  largest  Lancashire 
with  1,827,436. 

The  governing  authority  of  each  administrative  county  is  the 
county  council,  a  body  composed  of  (1)  councilors  elected  for  a 
term  of  three  years  in  single -member  electoral  divisions,  under 
very  liberal  suffrage  arrangements  applying  to  both  men  and 
women,3  and  (2)  aldermen  chosen  for  six  years  by  these  popu- 
larly elected  councilors,  either  from  their  own  number  or  from 
outside.4    The  aldermen  are  one  third  as  numerous  as  the  other 

1  The  office  of  sheriff  ("shire-reeve")  antedates  the  Norman  Conquest.  By 
the  twelfth  century  the  sheriff,  as  the  principal  local  representative  of  the  crown, 
had  become  a  great  military,  financial,  and  judicial  personage,  with  a  strong  tendency 
to  make  his  power  hereditary.  Step  by  step  his  authority  was  pared  down,  until 
nowadays  the  office,  while  picturesque  and  not  devoid  of  a  certain  amount  of  re- 
sponsibility, is  of  little  practical  importance.  The  principal  duties  that  now  de- 
volve upon  the  sheriff  are  (1)  to  act  as  the  returning  officer  for  the  count}-  at 
parliamentary  elections,  (2)  to  receive  and  attend  the  king's  judges  on  circuit,  (3) 
to  summon  juries,  and  (4)  to  execute  the  judgments,  criminal  and  civil,  of  the  courts 
of  justice.  Most  of  these  duties,  except  the  purely  ceremonial  ones,  are  performed 
by  deputy.  The  tenure  is  one  year,  and  the  office  is  unpaid.  "The  whole  history 
of  English  justice  and  police,"  comments  Maitland,  "might  be  brought  under  this 
rubric,  the  decline  and  fall  of  the  sheriff."  (Justice  and  Police,  69.)  See  Wilson, 
The  State  (ed.  of  1018),  225-226. 

2  For  a  list  of  the  county  boroughs  see  Statesman's  Year  Book,  iqiq,  pp.  16-18. 

3  The  local  government  electorate  was  greatly  broadened  by  the  Representation 
of  the  People  Act  of  1918.  In  England,  Wales,  and  Ireland  it  includes  all  men  and 
women  twenty-one  years  of  age  and  upwards  and  not  subject  to  any  legal  incapacity, 
who  are  jointly  or  severally  occupiers  as  owners  or  tenants  of  any  land  or  premises 
in  a  local  government  area,  if  the}'  have  so  occupied  for  six  months  ending  January 
15  or  July  15.  Furthermore,  the  wife  of  every  local  government  elector  is  a  voter 
if  she  is  thirty  years  old,  irrespective  of  whether  she  is  an  occupier.  The  arrange- 
ments in  Scotland  are  different,  and  somewhat  less  liberal. 

4  If  a  councilor  is  made  an  alderman  his  seat  as  an  ordinary  councilor  becomes 
vacant  and  is  filled  again  at  a  special  election. 


230  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

councilors,  and  half  of  them  retire  triennially.  There  is  no  dis- 
tinction of  power  or  function  between  the  two  (lasses  of  members. 
In  the  choice  of  councilors  party  feeling  seldom  displays  itself, 
and  elections  are  often  uncontested.  Members  are  drawn 
mainly  from  the  landowners,  large  farmers,  and  professional 
men,  although  representatives  of  the  lower  middle  and  laboring 
classes  are  now  more  frequently  appearing.  The  councils  vary 
greatly  in  size,  but  the  average  membership  is  approximately 
seventy-five.  It  is  not  easy  to  bring  together  so  many  men  at 
brief  intervals,  and  the  bodies  do  not  assemble  as  a  rule  oftener 
than  the  four  times  a  year  required  by  law.  The  mass  of  business 
devolving  upon  them  is  transacted  largely  through  committees. 
Of  these,  some  —  as  the  committees  on  finance,  education,  and 
asylums  —  are  required  by  law;  others  are  established  as  occa- 
sion arises.  The  continuous  work  of  administration  is  performed 
by  a  group  of  officials  —  the  clerk,  the  chief  constable,  the  treas- 
urer, the  surveyor,  the  public  analyst  (chemist),  and  others  — 
chosen  in  most  instances  by  the  council  and  having  substantial 
permanence  of  tenure. 

The  powers  and  duties  of  the  council  are  many  and  varied. 
In  the  act  of  1888  —  which  transferred  the  administrative  and 
financial  powers  of  the  justices  of  the  peace  to  the  new  body, 
leaving  to  the  justices  only  their  judicial  functions  —  they  are 
enumerated  in  sixteen  categories,  of  which  the  most  important 
are  the  raising,  expending,  and  borrowing  of  money ;  the  care 
of  county  property,  buildings,  bridges,  lunatic  asylums,  reforma- 
tory and  industrial  schools;  the  appointment  of  inferior  admin- 
istrative officials ;  the  granting  of  certain  licenses  other  than  for 
the  sale  of  liquor  j1  the  care  of  main  highways  and  the  protection 
of  streams  from  pollution  ;  and  the  enforcement  of  various  regu- 
lations relating  to  animals,  fish,  birds,  and  insects.  The  Edu- 
cation Act  of  1902  made  the  council  also  the  school  authority 
throughout  the  county,  except  in  the  urban  sections.  It  must 
see  that  adequate  provision  is  made  for  elementary  schools,  and 
it  may  assist  in  the  maintenance  of  agencies  of  education  of 
higher  grades.  The  control  of  police  within  the  county  rests 
with  a  joint  committee  representing  the  council  and  the  justices 
of  the  peace.  Finally,  the  council  may  make  by-laws  for  the 
county,  supervise  the  minor  rural  authorities,  and  perfom  the 
work  of  these  authorities  when  they  prove  remiss.2 

1  Liquor  licenses  are  granted  by  the  justices  of  the  peace. 

2  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  1 1.  ,1  Be  W.  Anderson,  "How  England 
has  Solved  some  Familiar  County  Problems,"  in  Nat.  Mimic.  Rev.,  July,  1918. 


LOCAL    GOVERNMENT 


231 


Other  Areas  of  Rural  Local  Government.  —  The  adminis- 
trative county  contains  four  kinds  of  local  government  areas  — 
rural  districts,  rural  parishes,  urban  districts,  and  municipal 
boroughs.  Of  rural  districts  there  are,  in  England  and  Wales, 
672.  They  are  coterminous,  as  a  rule,  with  rural  poor-law 
unions,  or  with  the  rural  portions  of  unions  which  are  both  rural 
and  urban ;  but  they  cannot  comprise  parts  of  more  than  one 
county.  The  governing  authority  of  the  district  is  a  council, 
composed  of  persons  (women  being  eligible)  chosen,  in  most 
instances  triennially,  by  the  rural  parishes  in  proportion  to  popu- 
lation. As  a  rule,  one  third  retire  each  year.  The  council 
meets  at  least  once  a  month,  and  is  chiefly  responsible  for  the 
enforcement  of  public  health  acts  and  for  the  care  of  highways 
which  are  not  classed  as  "  main  roads."  To  meet  in  part  the 
costs  of  this  administration,  it  is  empowered  to  levy  district  rates, 
or  taxes.  The  principal  salaried  and  permanent  officials  of  the 
district,  chosen  by  the  council,  are  a  clerk,  a  treasurer,  a  medical 
officer,  a  surveyor,  and  a  corps  of  sanitary  inspectors. 

Of  parishes  there  are  two  types,  the  rural  and  the  urban,  and 
their  aggregate  number  in  England  and  Wales  is  approximately 
15,000.  The  urban  parishes  have  no  administrative  importance, 
and  farther  mention  need  not  be  made  of  them.1  Under  the  act 
of  1894  the  rural  parish,  however,  has  been  revived  from  the  inert 
condition  into  which  it  had  fallen,  and  to-day  it  fills  an  appre- 
ciable, if  humble,  place  in  the  rural  administrative  system.  Its 
organization  is  dependent  to  a  degree  upon  its  population.  But 
in  every  parish  there  is  "  a  parish  meeting  "  in  which  all  persons 
on  the  local  government  and  parliamentary  registers  (including 
women)  have  a  right  to  participate.  What  this  meeting  — 
which  is,  of  course,  a  primary  assembly,  and  not  a  representative 
body  —  does  depends  upon  whether  the  parish  has  or  has  not  a 
council.  Parishes  having  a  population  of  three  hundred  or  more 
must  have  councils,  and  others  may  now  do  so  (with  the  consent 
of  the  county  council)  if  they  desire.  The  council  is  composed 
of  from  five  to  fifteen  members  (women  being  eligible),  elected 
as  a  rule  for  a  term  of  three  years.  If  there  is  a  council,  the 
parish  meeting  has  little  to  do  except  choose  the  councilors 
and  criticize  their  work.  In  this  case  it  meets  but  once  a  year. 
But  if  there  is  no  council,  the  meeting  elects  a  group  of  overseers 
to  represent  it  in  carrying  on  the  routine  work ;  and  in  this  case 
it  meets  twice  a  year.  Whatever  the  organization,  the  powers 
of  the  parish  authorities  make  an  extended,  if  not  imposing,  list. 

1  But  see  Jenks,  Government  of  the  British  Empire,  312. 


232  GOVERNMEN  rS  OF    EUROPE 

include  the  managemenl  of  civil  parochial  property,  the 
provision  of  fire  protection,  the  inspection  ol  local  sanitation, 
the  maintenance  of  footpaths,  and  the  appointmenl  of  trustees 
of  civil  charities  within  the  parish.  The  meagerness  of  the  popu 
lation  of  large  numbers  of  the  parishes,  however,  together  with 
the  severe  limitations  imposed  both  by  law  and  by  pra<  tical  condi- 
tion- upon  rate-levying  powers,  usually  prevents  the  authorities 
from  undertaking  many  or  large  projects. 

For  the  administration  of  poor  relief  there  have  existed  since 
[782  poor-law  unions,  consisting  of  parishes  grouped  together, 
usually  without  much  effort  to  obtain  equality  of  size  or  popu- 
lation. The  districts,  rural  and  urban,  created  in  1894  are.  in 
general,  coterminous  with  these  unions;  and  in  the  rural  district 
the  old  "  board  of  guardians  "  is  merged  in  the  district  council, 
although  in  the  urban  district  the  board  and  the  council  are  sep- 
arate bodies.  The  unions,  however,  often  contain  both  rural 
and  urban  parishes,  and  in  cases  of  this  kind  poor-law  adminis- 
tration is  vested  in  a  board  of  guardians  composed  of  the  persons 
elected  as  district  councilors  in  the  rural  parishes  of  the  union, 
together  with  other  persons  who  are  specially  elected  as  guar- 
dians in  the  urban  parishes  and  have  no  other  function.  The 
conditions  under  which  poor  relief  is  administered  are  minutely 
prescribed  in  regulations  laid  down  by  the  Local  Government 
Board  (superseded  in  1919  by  the  Ministry  of  Health)  at  London, 
so  that,  save  in  the  matter  of  levying  rates,  the  range  of  discretion 
left  to  the  boards  of  guardians  is  very  narrow.1 

Areas  of  Urban  Local  Government :  the  Urban  District  and 
the  Borough.  —  Aside  from  London,  which  has  a  complicated 
system  of  government  peculiar  to  itself,  the  urban  portions  of  the 
country  are  organized  under  three  chief  forms,  i.e.,  the  urban  dis- 
trict, the  municipal  borough,  and  the  county  borough.  Little 
need  be  said  about  the  urban  district.  It  comprises  simply  a 
section  of  a  county  which  presumably  has  a  somewhat  dense 
population,  and  is  on  the  road  to  becoming  a  borough,  and  in  the 
meantime  is  given  a  government  adapted  to  its  peculiar  needs. 
Its  organization  hardly  differs  from  that  of  the  rural  district;  it 
has  a  council,  elected  for  three  years  and  meeting  regularly  once 
a  month;  and  its  work  chiefly  the  control  of  sanitation  and 
highways  —  is  carried  on  by  committees,  assisted  by  permanent 
salaried  officials  whom  the  council  ele<  t  5. 

The  standard  municipal  unit  is,  rather,  the  borough,  which 

'  Ashley,  Local  and  Central  Government,  52  60;  F.  A.  Ogg,  Social  Progress  in 
Contemporary  Europe  (New  York,  [912),  Chap.  xvi. 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  233 

differs  from  the  urban  district  mainly  in  having  a  charter  granted 
by  l he  crown,  and  in  being  vested  with  numerous  powers  be- 
longing to  no  inferior  urban  area.  The  distinction  between 
municipal  boroughs  and  county  boroughs  need  not  detain  us. 
All  boroughs  are,  of  course,  properly  speaking,  municipal;  all 
have  substantially  the  same  organization.  The  county  boroughs 
—  eighty- two  in  number  in  191 9  —  are  simply  those  that  have 
been  withdrawn  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  administrative 
counties  in  which  they  lie,  and  have  themselves  been  endowed 
with  the  powers  of  counties ;  under  the  Local  Government  Act 
of  1888  boroughs  are  so  withdrawn  when  they  attain  a  popula- 
tion of  fifty  thousand.1  Ordinary  municipal  boroughs  are  those 
that  still  form  parts  politically,  as  well  as  geographically,  of  the 
counties  in  which  they  are  situated.2 

The  Municipal  Corporations  Act  of  1835,  which  put  municipal 
government  in  England  upon  its  present  basis,  was  immediately 
applied  to  178  boroughs  in  England  and  Wales ;  and  the  number 
covered  has  been  increased,  as  new  boroughs  have  been  created, 
to  upwards  of  four  hundred.  Every  borough  has  a  charter,  which 
creates  a  corporation  (consisting  of  the  "  mayor,  aldermen,  and 
burgesses"),  and,  in  conformity  with  the  Municipal  Corpora- 
tions Consolidation  Act  of  1882,  prescribes  a  form  of  government 
and  defines  a  body  of  powers  similar  to,  although  not  in  all  details 
identical  with,  those  possessed  by  other  boroughs.  Charters 
were  formerly  issued,  on  petition  of  the  inhabitants,  by  the 
Local  Government  Board,  acting  in  the  name  of  the  crown. 
At  present,  the  function  has  devolved,  although  probably  only 
temporarily,  upon  the  Board's  legatee,  the  Ministry  of  Health. 
If  a  petition  raises  controversy,  the  final  decision  is  likely  to  be 
made  by  Parliament. 

Borough  government  is  constructed  on  the  characteristic 
English  plan  of  gathering  substantially  all  authority  into  the 

1  There  are  actually,  however,  several  boroughs  with  greater  population  which 
have  not  been  made  county  boroughs. 

2  It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  term  "city"  has  a  technical  meaning  in  England, 
and,  in  strict  accuracy,  should  not  be  used  interchangeably  with  "borough."  The 
term  once  denoted  a  place  which  was,  or  had  been,  the  seat  of  a  bishop.  Nowadays  it 
is  applied  also  to  places,  as  Sheffield  and  Leeds,  upon  which  the  title  has  been  bestowed 
by  royal  patent.  Save,  however,  in  the  case  of  the  "city"  of  London  (see  p.  236), 
where  alone  in  England  ancient  municipal  institutions  have  been  generally  preserved, 
the  term  has  no  present  political  significance.  The  governments  of  the  cities  are 
identical  with  those  of  the  non-city  boroughs.  It  is  to  be  observed,  further,  that 
whereas  formerly  boroughs  as  organized  for  municipal  purposes  invariably  coincided 
with  the  boroughs  as  constituted  for  purpose?  of  representation  in  Parliament, 
there  is  now  no  necessary  connection  between  the  two.  An  addition  to  a  municipal 
borough  does  not  alter  the  parliamentary  constituency. 


234  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

hands  of  a  single  elected  body,  a  council ;  the  doctrine  of  separa- 
tion of  executive  and  Legislative  powers  finds  no  more  acceptance 
in  municipal  than  in  county  and  other  local  organization.  The 
borough  council  consists  of  councilors,  aldermen,  and  a  mayor, 
sitting  as  one  body.  The  councilors,  varying  in  number  from 
nine  to  more  than  a  hundred,  are  elected  by  practically  the 
entire  adult  population,  male  and  female,  for  terms  of  three 
years,  one  third  retiring  annually.  In  small  boroughs  they 
are  usually  elected  on  a  general  ticket,  in  large  ones  by  districts 
or  wards.  Since  1907  women  have  been  eligible,  and  many  have 
been  elected.  The  aldermen,  to  the  number  of  one  third  of  the 
councilors,  are  chosen  by  the  council  for  six  years,  one  half 
retiring  triennially.  They  may  be  taken  from  outside  the 
council,  but  most  of  them  are  selected  from  the  more  experienced 
councilors,  making  it  necessary  to  hold  "  by-elections  "  to  fill  the 
vacancies.  Legally  the  aldermen  differ  from  the  ordinary 
councilors  only  in  the  manner  of  their  election  and  the  length 
of  their  term.  Being,  however,  as  a  rule  more  experienced,  they 
are  likely  to  hold  the  principal  committee  chairmanships  and 
to  have  exceptional  influence  in  the  shaping  of  policies.  The 
system  makes  it  possible,  also,  to  draw  into  the  council  men  of 
high  qualifications  who  would  not  seek  election,  or  be  likely  to 
be  elected,  by  the  people  at  large. 

The  mayor  is  elected  for  one  year  by  the  council,  either  from 
its  own  membership  or  from  outside.  He  is  not  the  head  of  a 
separate  branch  of  government,  as  is  the  mayor  of  an  American 
city,  but  merely  the  presiding  officer  of  the  council  and  the  official 
representative  of  the  borough  on  state  occasions.  He  cannot 
appoint  or  remove  officers,  control  the  departments,  or  veto 
ordinances.  Hence  he  need  not  be  a  man  of  executive  ability 
or  experience.  As  matters  go,  it  is  far  more  important  that  he 
be  a  person  of  some  wealth,  and  of  leisure ;  for  the  chief  demands 
upon  him  will  be  of  a  social  and  philanthropic  nature,  and  a 
salary  is  rarely  provided.  If  he  is  willing,  he  is  likely  to  be 
reelected  a  number  of  times.  Reelections  of  councilors  and 
aldermen  are  also  numerous,  resulting  in  a  continuity  of  ser- 
vice and  an  accumulation  of  experience  quite  unknown  to  the 
American  city  council,  where  the  doctrine  of  rotation  in  office 
still  rules. 

The  council  meets  in  the  town  hall  monthly,  fortnightly,  or 
weekly,  according  as  the  amount  of  business  demands.  The 
larger  part  of  its  work,  however,  is  transacted  through  com- 
mittees, which  are  elected  by  the  council,  and  presided  over  by 


LOCAL   GOVERNMENT  235 

chairmen  whom  the  committees  themselves  choose.  Under 
national  law  there  must  be  a  "  watch,"  i.e.,  police,  committee, 
and  a  committee  on  education.  Other  committees  are  created 
at  the  council's  discretion,  and  the  number  varies  from  six  or 
seven  in  small  boroughs  to  twenty  or  twenty-five  in  large  ones. 
Practically  all  matters  brought  up  in  the  council  are  referred  to 
some  committee ;  and  since  they  are  there  considered  in  all  due 
detail,  and  normally  by  the  councilors  who  are  best  informed  on 
the  subject  in  hand,  committee  recommendations  are  almost 
certain  to  be  adopted. 

The  council  comprises,  in  the  fullest  sense,  the  government 
of  the  borough ;  hence  it  exercises  substantially  all  of  the  powers 
(save  that  of  electing  the  councilors  themselves)  that  come  to 
the  borough  from  the  common  law,  from  general  and  special 
acts  of  Parliament,  and  from  provisional  orders.     These  powers 
fall  into  three  main  classes :  legislative,  financial,  and  adminis- 
trative.    The  council  makes  by-laws,  or  ordinances,  relating  to 
all  sorts  of  matters  —  streets,  police,  health,  trafiic  control,  etc. 
—  subject  only  to  the  power  of  the  Ministry  of  Health  to  disallow 
ordinances  on  health  and  a  few  other  subjects  if  that  authority 
finds  them  objectionable.     It  acts  as  custodian  of  the  "  borough 
fund  "  (consisting  of  receipts  from  public  property,  franchises, 
fines,  fees,  etc.) ;  levies  "  borough  rates  "  of  so  many  shillings  or 
pence  per  pound  on  the  rental  value  of  real  property,  in  order  to 
obtain  whatever  additional  revenue  is  needed;  draws  up  and 
adopts  the  annual  budget ;  makes  all  appropriations ;  and  bor- 
rows money  on  the  credit  of  the  municipality  in  so  far  as  the 
central  authorities  permit.     Finally,  it  exercises  control  over  all 
branches  of  strictly  municipal  administration.     This  it  does, 
first,  by  appointing,  on  a  non-partisan  basis,  the  staff  of  perma- 
nent salaried  officials  —  clerk,  treasurer,  engineer,  public  analyst, 
chief  constable,  medical  officer,  etc.  —  who  carry  on  the  daily 
work  of  the  borough  government,   and,   second,  by  constant 
supervision  of  these  officials  and  their  subordinates,  exercised 
through  the  committees  having  to  do  with  the  various  branches 
of  business.     Thus  the  education  committee  not  only  receives 
and  considers  legislative  proposals  relating  to  education ;  it  inter- 
views candidates  for  educational  positions,  makes  nominations 
to  the  council,  and  in  the  name  of  the  council  inspects  and  directs 
the  work  of  the  educational  authorities.    The  role  of  committees 
thus  becomes  something  very  different  from,  and  much  more 
important  than,  anything  of  the  kind  in  the  government  of  the 
cities  of  the  United  States. 


:•(,  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

The  Government  of  London.  The  unique  governmental 
arrangements  of  London  are  the  product  partly  of  historical 
survival  and  partly  of  special  and  comparatively  recent  legis- 
lation. Technically,  the  "  city  "  of  London  is  still  what  it  was 
centuries  ago,  i.e.,  an  area  with  a  government  of  its  own  com- 
prising about  one  square  mile  on  the  left  hank  of  the  Thames. 
A  series  of  measure-  covering  a  period  of  somewhat  more  than 
fifty  years,  however,  has  drawn  the  entire  region  occupied  by 
the  metropolis  geographically,  parts  of  the  three  counties  of 
Middlesex,  Surrey,  and  Kent  —  into  a  carefully  coordinated 
scheme  of  local  administration.  London  was  untouched  by  the 
Municipal  Corporations  Act  of  iS.^v  and  the  changes  which 
brought  into  being  the  governmental  system  of  the  present  d ay- 
began  to  be  introduced  only  with  the  adoption  of  the  Metropolis 
Management  Act  of  1855.  The  government  of  the  City  was  left 
unchanged,  but  the  surrounding  parishes,  hitherto  governed 
independently  by  their  vestries,  were  at  this  time  brought  for 
certain  purposes  under  the  control  of  a  central  authority  known 
as  the  Metropolitan  Board  of  Works.  The  Local  Government 
Act  of  1888  went  a  step  farther.  The  Board  of  Works  was 
abolished,  extra-city  London  was  transformed  into  an  adminis- 
trative county  of  some  121  square  miles,  and  upon  the  newly 
created  London  county  council  (elected  by  the  ratepayers)  was 
conferred  a  varied  and  highly  important  group  of  powers.  Fi- 
nally, in  1899  the  London  Government  Act  simplified  the  situa- 
tion by  sweeping  away  a  mass  of  surviving  authorities  and  juris- 
dictions and  creating  twenty-eight  metropolitan  boroughs,  each 
with  mayor,  aldermen,  and  councilors  such  as  any  provincial 
borough  possesses,  although  with  powers  specially  defined  and, 
on  the  side  of  finance,  somewhat  restricted.  Within  each  bor- 
ough are  urban  parishes;  each  with  its  own  vestry. 

The  situation  to-day,  therefore,  is  briefly  this.  At  the  center 
of  the  metropolitan  area  stands  the  historic  City,  which  is 
geographically  in,  but  not  politically  of,  the  municipality.  It  is 
the  heart  of  the  English  financial  and  business  world,  but  it  has 
a  resident  population  of  not  above  thirty  thousand;  and  its 
government,  composed  of  Lord  Mayor,  Court  of  Aldermen,  and 
Court  of  Common  Council,  presents  a  singular  combination  of 
ancient  and  modern  features.  Outside  of  the  City  are  twenty- 
eight  contiguous  metropolitan  boroughs,  which  in  their  organi- 
zation are  a  cross  between  ordinary  boroughs  and  urban  districts. 
Coextensive  with  these  geographically,  and  exercising  a  large 
amount  of  control  over  them,  is  the  administrative  county  of 


LOCAL   GOVERNMENT  237 

London,  with  its  one  hundred  and  eighteen  councilors  and  its 
nineteen  aldermen,  presided  over  by  an  elective  chairman. 
And  sweeping  far  out  into  the  surrounding  areas  are  the  jurisdic- 
tions of  the  Metropolitan  Water  Board  and  the  Metropolitan 
Police  Board  ;  the  authority  of  the  latter  extends  over  all  parishes 
within  fifteen  miles  of  Charing  Cross,  an  area  of  almost  seven 
hundred  square  miles.1 

1  For  excellent  descriptions  of  the  government  of  London  see  Munro,  Government 
of  European  Cities,  339-379  (bibliography,  395-402),  and  Lowell,  Government  of 
England,  II,  202-232.  Valuable  works  are  G.  L.  Gomme,  Governance  of  London: 
Studies  on  the  Place  Occupied  by  London  in  English  Institutions  (London, 
1907);  ibid.,  The  London  County  Council:  its  Duties  and  Powers  according  to  the 
Local  Government  Act  of  iSSS  (London,  1888) ;  A.  MacMorran,  The  London  Govern- 
ment Act  (London,  1899) ;  A.  B.  Hopkins,  Boroughs  of  the  Metropolis  (London, 
1900) ;  and  J.  R.  Seager,  Government  of  London  under  the  London  Government  Act 
(London,  1904).  An  informing  article  is  G.  L.  Fox,  "The  London  County  Council," 
in  Yale  Rev.,  May,  1895. 

The  best  work  on  the  general  subject  of  English  local  government  is  J.  Redhch, 
and  F.  W.  Hirst,  Local  Government  in  England,  2  vols.  (London,  1903).  There  are 
several  convenient  manuals,  among  them  P.  Ashley,  English  Local  Government 
(London,  1905);  W.  B.  Odgers,  Local  Government  (London,  1899),  based  on  the 
older  work  of  M.  D.  Chalmers;  E.  Jenks,  Outline  of  English  Local  Government  (2d 
ed.,  London,  1907) ;  R.  S.  Wright  and  H.  Hobhouse,  Outline  of  Local  Government  and 
Local  Taxation  in  England  and  Wales  (3d  ed.,  London,  1906) ;  and  R.  C.  Maxwell, 
English  Local  Government  (London,  1900).  The  subject  is  treated  admirably  in 
Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II,  Chaps,  xxxviii-xlvi,  and  a  portion  of  it  in  W.  B. 
Munro,  Government  of  European  Cities  (New  York,  1909),  Chap,  iii  (full  bib- 
liography, pp.  395-402).  There  are  good  sketches  in  Ashley,  Local  and  Central 
Government,  Chaps,  i  and  v,  and  Marriott,  English  Political  Institutions,  Chap.  xiii. 
The  task  of  reform  is  described  in  H.  J.  Laski,  The  Problem  of  Administrative 
Areas  (Northampton,  1918).  A  valuable  group  of  papers  read  at  the  First  Inter- 
national Congress  of  the  Administrative  Sciences,  held  at  Brussels  in  July,  1910, 
is  printed  in  G.  M.  Harris,  Problems  of  Local  Government  (London,  191 1).  A  useful 
compendium  of  laws  relating  to  city  government  is  C.  Rawlinson,  Municipal 
Corporation  Acts  and  Other  Enactments  (9th  ed.,  London,  1903).  Two  appreciative 
surveys  bv  American  writers  are  A.  Shaw,  Municipal  Government  in  Great  Britain 
(New  York,  1898),  and  F.  Howe,  The  British  City  (New  York,  1907).  On  the  sub- 
ject of  municipal  trading  the  reader  may  be  referred  to  Lowell,  Government  of  Eng- 
land, II,  Chap,  xliv,  and  Lord  Avebury,  Municipal  and  National  Trading  (London, 
1907) .  Among  works  on  poor-law  administration  may  be  mentioned  T.  A.  Mackay, 
History  of  the  English  Poor  Law  from  1834  to  the  Present  Time  (New  York,  1900) ; 
P.  T.  Aschrott  and  H.  P.  Thomas,  The  English  Poor  Law  System,  Past  and  Present 
(2d  ed.,  London,  1902) ;  and  S.  and  B.  Webb,  English  Poor  Law  Policy  (London, 
1910).  The  best  treatise  on  educational  administration  is  G.  Balfour,  Educational 
Systems  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  (2d  ed.,  London,  1904).  Finally  must  be  men- 
tioned C.  Gross,  Bibliography  of  British  Municipal  History  (New  York,  1897),  an 
invaluable  guide  to  the  voluminous  literature  of  an  intricate  subject. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

POLITICAL    PARTIES    SINCE   THE   EIGHTEENTH   CENTURY 

Importance  and  Uses  of  Party.  —  It  may  be  set  down  as  an 
axiom  that  political  parties  arc  not  only  an  inevitable  but  a  neces- 
sary and  proper  adjunct  of  any  scheme  of  popular  government. 
The  moment  the  people  set  about  deciding  upon  public  policy, 
or  electing  representatives  to  formulate  and  execute  such  policy, 
differences  of  view  appear ;  and  out  of  these  differences  of 
view  political  parties  arise.  There  is,  of  course,  hardly  any- 
thing that  has  been  more  abused  than  party  organization  and 
spirit.  Party  principles,  party  programs,  party  committees 
and  managers,  party  treasuries,  party  propaganda  —  all  have 
been  brought  into  frequent  disrepute ;  so  that,  as  one  writer 
has  wittily  remarked,  while  men  may  be  willing  to  die  for  party, 
they  seldom  praise  it.1  None  the  less,  political  parties  afford 
perhaps  a  clearer  index  than  anything  else  of  the  political  capacity 
and  advancement  of  a  nation.  "  The  most  gifted  and  freest 
nations  politically  are  those  that  have  the  most  sharply  defined 
parties.  .  .  .  Wherever  political  parties  are  non-existent,  one 
finds  either  a  passive  indifference  to  all  public  concerns,  born 
of  ignorance  and  incapacity,  or  else  one  finds  the  presence  of 
a  tyrannical  and  despotic  form  of  government,  suppressing  the 
common  manifestations  of  opinion  and  aspiration  on  the  part 
of  the  people.  Organized,  drilled,  and  disciplined  parties  are 
the  only  means  we  have  yet  discovered  by  which  to  secure  re- 
sponsible government,  and  thus  to  execute  the  will  of  the 
people."  2 

The  uses  of  political  parties  in  a  democracy  are  fivefold.  First, 
they  enable  men  who  think  alike  on  public  questions  to  unite 
in  support  of  a  common  body  of  principles  and  policies  and  to 
work  together  to  bring  these  principles  and  policies  into  actual 
operation.     Second,  they  afford  a  useful,  if  not  indispensable, 

1  Low,  Governance  of  England  (ne  ?  ed.  .  1 io. 

2  P.  ().  Ray,  Introduction  to  Political  Parties  and  Practical  Politics  (n£\v  ed., 
New  York,  1917),  9-10.  Sec  the  comment  on  this  subje<  1  in  A.  Esmein,  Elements 
de  droit  constitulionnel  francais  ct  compare  (4th  ed.,  Paris,  1906),  168-178. 

238 


POLITICAL   PARTIES    SINCE    1800  239 

means  by  which  men  who  have  the  same  objects  in  view  may 
agree  in  advance  upon  the  candidates  whom  they  will  support  for 
office,  and  recommend  them  to  the  general  electorate.  Third, 
parties  educate  and  organize  public  opinion  and  stimulate  public 
interest,  by  keeping  the  public  informed  upon  the  issues  of  the 
day  through  the  press,  platform,  and  other  agencies.  Fourth, 
they  furnish  a  certain  social  and  political  cement  by  which  the 
more  or  less  independent  and  scattered  parts  of  the  government 
(in  so  far  as  they  are  in  the  hands  of  men  belonging  to  a  single 
party)  are  bound  together  in  an  effective  working  mechanism. 
Fifth,  the  party  system  insures  that  the  government  at  any 
given  time  will  be  subject  to  steady  and  organized  criticism, 
whose  effect  will  usually  be  wholesome.1 

Government  by  Party  in  England.  —  In  these  and  other  ways 
parties  contribute  greatly  to  the  carrying  on  of  government  in 
all  democratic  states.  Nowhere,  however,  does  "  government 
by  party  "  prevail  in  the  same  degree  as  in  England.  To  under- 
stand why  this  is  so  it  is  necessary  merely  to  bring  together 
certain  facts,  some  of  which  are  already  familiar.  The  most 
important  single  feature  of  the  English  government  as  it  now 
operates  is  the  cabinet  system ;  and  the  essentials  of  this 
system  include  (1)  the  appointment  of  the  ministers  from  the 
party  which  at  the  given  time  controls  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  (2)  the  retirement  of  these  ministers  whenever  they  can  no 
longer  command  the  support  of  a  parliamentary  majority. 
This  system  arose  out  of  the  warfare  of  parties ;  it  is  incon- 
ceivable that  it  should  ever  have  arisen  without  parties  and  party 
conflict.  The  connection  is  not,  however,  a  matter  merely  of 
historical  origins ;  parties  are  indispensable  to  the  successful 
operation,  and  even  to  the  continuance,  of  the  system.  The 
only  kind  of  majority  that  has  sufficient  coherence  and  stability 
to  make  it  dependable  is  a  majority  held  together  by  the  ties 
of  party.  In  the  absence  of  parties  the  situation  would  be 
either  that  ministries  would  rise  and  fall  with  lightning  rapidity 
because  no  organized  force  would  be  interested  in  keeping  them 
in  power,  or  that  they  would  go  on  ruling  indefinitely  after  they 
had  got  entirely  out  of  harmony  with  the  popular  chamber. 
There  would  be  no  point  to  the  retirement  of  a  ministry,  did  not 

1  Compare,  however,  the  trenchant  criticisms  of  parties  and  the  party  system 
contained  in  H.  Belloc  and  G.  Chesterton,  The  Party  System  (London,  1911),  and 
R.  Michels,  Les  partis  poliliqucs ;  cssai  stir  les  tendances  oligarchiqucs  des  democracies 
(Paris,  1914),  trans,  under  the  title  Political  Parties:  a  Sociological  Study  of  the 
Oligarchical  Tendencies  of  Modern  Democracy  (New  York,  1915). 


240  G0\  ERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

an  opposing  party  stand  ready  to  set  up  a  ministry  of  a  different 
sort  and  assume  lull  power  and  responsibility. 
The  cabinet    system   and   the  party   system   arc,   therefore, 

intimately   hound    up   together;     indeed,    they   are   I>ut    different 

aspects  of  the  same  working  arrangement.  In  the  United  States 
parties  stand  outside  the  formal  governmental  system;  until 
within  recent  decades  their  activities  were  not  even  subject  to 

regulation  by  law.  Many  of  the  greal  party  leaders  and 
managers  -for  example,  the  chairmen  of  the  national  com- 
mittees are  not  public  officials  at  all,  and  platforms  are  made 
by  conventions  whose  members  are  drawn  mainly  from  private 
life.  In  England,  however,  party  works  inside  rather  than 
outside  the  governmental  system ;  speaking  broadly,  the  ma- 
chinery of  party  and  the  machinery  of  government  are  one  and 
the  same  thing.  The  ministers  —  at  all  events  those  who  sit 
in  the  cabinet  —  are  at  the  same  time  the  working  executive, 
the  leaders  in  legislation,  and  the  chiefs  of  the  party  in  power. 
The  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons,  which  legislates,  ap- 
propriates money,  supervises  and  controls  administration,  and 
upholds  the  ministers  as  long  as  it  is  able,  is  for  all  practical 
purposes  the  party  itself;  while  over  against  the  ministry  and 
its  parliamentary  majority  stands  the  Opposition,  consisting 
of  influential  exponents  of  the  contrary  political  faith,  who,  in 
turn,  lead  the  rank  and  file  of  their  party  organization,  and  are 
ready  to  take  the  helm  whenever  their  rivals  fall  out  of  favor 
in  the  popular  chamber. 

Two-Party  Organization.  —  Not  only  is  it  true  that  a  re- 
sponsible ministry  involves  government  by  party ;  in  order  to 
work  smoothly  such  a  ministerial  system  requires  the  existence 
of  two  great  parties  and  no  more  —  each,  in  the  words  of  Bryce, 
"  strong  enough  to  restrain  the  violence  of  the  other,  yet  one  of 
them  steadily  preponderant  in  any  given  House  of  Commons."  l 
Considerations  of  unity  and  responsibility  demand  that  the 
party  in  power  shall  be  strong  enough  to  govern  alone,  or  sub- 
stantially so.  Similarly,  when  it  goes  out  of  power,  a  party  of 
at  least  equal  strength  ought  to  come  in.  Obviously,  this 
must  mean  two  great  parties,  practically  dividing  the  electorate 
between  them.  \nv  considerable  splitting  up  of  the  people 
beyond  this  poinl  is  likely  to  result  in  the  inability  of  any  single 
party  to  command  a  working  majority,  with  the  resull  that 
ministries  will  have  to  represenl  coalitions,  which  will  lack  unity 
and  responsibility,  and  will  be  liable  to  be  toppled  over  by  the 
1  Anurican  Commonwealth,  I,  287. 


POLITICAL   PARTIES    SINCE    1800  241 

first  adverse  wind  that  blows.  This,  as  will  appear,  is  precisely 
the  situation  in  France,  Italy,  and  several  other  continental 
countries,  which,  having  copied  the  outlines  of  the  English 
cabinet  system,  are  vastly  handicapped  in  operating  the  scheme 
by  the  multiplicity  of  parties  and  party  groups.  Despite  the 
rise  forty  years  ago  of  the  Irish  Nationalist  group,  and  later 
of  the  Labor  party,  it  was  still  true  in  Great  Britain  at  the  out- 
break of  the  Great  War,  as  it  had  been  since  political  parties 
first  made  their  appearance  there,  that  two  leading  party  affilia- 
tions practically  divided  between  them  the  allegiance  of  the 
nation.  The  defeat  of  one  meant  the  triumph  of  the  other,  and 
either  alone  was  normally  able  to  govern  independently  if  ele- 
vated to.  power.  As  has  been  explained,  the  war  brought  about 
the  formation  of  a  coalition  ministry  and  the  practical  cessation 
of  party  strife.  None  the  less,  the  parliamentary  election  of 
1 91 8,  while  resulting  in  a  decisive  triumph  for  the  coalition 
government,  brought  the  old  party  lines  again  into  view ;  and 
within  the  ensuing  year  and  a  half  the  probability  that  the 
politics  of  the  country  would  fall  back  upon  its  accustomed 
basis  of  party  became  a  substantial  certainty.1 

The  Tory  Ascendancy,  1 783-1 830.  —  The  seventeenth-cen- 
tury origins  of  English  political  parties,  the  relations  of  Whigs 
and  Tories  after  the  Revolution  of  1688-89,  and  the  prolonged 
supremacy  of  the  Whigs  during  the  reigns  of   George  I  and 

1  For  a  fuller  presentation  of  the  relations  of  party  and  the  cabinet  system  see 
Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,  Chap.  xxiv.  The  best  general  description  of 
English  parties  and  party  machinery  is  Chaps,  xxiv-xxxvii  of  this  same  book.  The 
growth  of  parties  and  of  party  organization  is  discussed  in  much  detail  with 
admirable  temper  in  M.  Ostrogorski,  Democracy  and  the  Organization  of  Political 
Parties,  trans,  by  F.  Clarke  (London,  1902),  I.  A  valuable  monograph  is  A.  L. 
Lowell,  "The  Influence  of  Party  upon  Legislation  in  England  and  America,"  in 
Ann.  Report  of  Amer.  Hist.  Assoc,  1901  (Washington,  1902),  I,  319-542.  An  in- 
forming study  is  E.  Porritt,  "The  Break-up  of  the  English  Party  System,"  in  Ann. 
of  Amer.  Acad,  of  Polit.  and  Soc.  Set.,  V,  No.  4  (Jan.,  1895),  and  an  interesting 
criticism  is  Belloc  and  Chesterton,  The  Party  System.  Early  party  development  in 
relation  to  political  ideas  is  treated  in  a  scholarly  manner  in  P.  A.  Gibbons,  Ideas 
of  Political  Representation  in  Parliament,  1651-1832  (Oxford,  1914)-  There  is  no 
adequate  history  of  English  political  parties  from  their  origins  to  the  present  day. 
G.  W.  Cooke,  History  of  Parh  from  the  Rise  of  the  Whig  and  Tory  Factions  in  the 
Reign  of  Charles  II  to  the  Passing  of  the  Reform  Bill,  3  vols.  (London,  1836-37), 
covers  the  subject  satisfactorily  to  the  end  of  the  last  unreformed  parliament. 
Other  party  histories  —  as  T.  E.  Kebbel,  History  of  Toryism  (London,  1886) ; 
G.  G.  Butler,  The  Tory  Tradition  (London,  1914) ;  H.  Cecil,  Conservatism  (London, 
1912) ;  L.  T.  Hobhous'e,-  Liberalism  (London,  191 1) ;  W.  I..  Blease,  Short  History  of 
English  Liberalism  (London,  1913) ;  C.  B.  R.  Kent,  English  Radicals  (London, 
1:899);  W.  Harris,  History  of  the  Radical  Party  in  Parliament  (London,  1885); 
J.  B.  Daly,  The  Daren  of  Radicalism  (London,  1892);  and  R.  S.  Watson,  The 
National  Liberal  Federation  from  its  Commencement  to  the  General  Election  of  1906 
(London,  1907)  —cover  only  limited  fields.     For  other  party  histories  see  p.  281. 


GOVERNMEN  rS  OF    El  ROPE 

i  reorge  1 1  have  been  mentioned  elsewhere.1  I  during  the  eighteenth 
century  the  cabinet  system  slowly  took  form,  aided  by  the  sharp 
(  ontests  of  the  \\ Tiig  and  Tory  elements.  The  Tories  re<  on<  Lied 
themselves  to  the  Hanoverian  succession  with  much  difficulty, 
and  only  after  the  fall  of  Lord  North's  coalition  ministry  in  i  78 ^ 
did  they  give  up  their  old  ideas  and  become  as  loyal  to  the  new 
dynasty,  and  to  the  new  cabinet  and  party  system,  as  were 
their  opponents.  Throughout  the  era  of  the  French  Revolution 
and  of  Napoleon  they  were  almost  continuously  in  power; 
until  after  181  5  they  had  the  steady  support  of  the  governing 
classes  in  their  efforts  to  protect  the  nation  not  only  against  the 
arms  of  the  Corsican  but  against  the  contagion  of  continental 
revolutionism.  At  the  date  mentioned  their  position  seemed 
impregnable.  During  the  years  covered  by  the  ministry  of 
Lord  Liverpool  (1812-27),  however,  their  hold  was  gradually 
relaxed.  The  restoration  of  peace  brought  new  and  weighty 
problems;  the  movement  for  political  reform,  checked  during 
the  quarter  century  of  war,  set  in  afresh,  and  on  a  greater  scale ; 
bad  economic  conditions  caused  popular  unrest,  and  even  led 
to  serious  disorder.  The  Tories  talked  much  about  the  aris- 
tocratic exclusiveness  of  the  Whigs  and  sought  to  secure,  or  to 
hold,  the  support  of  such  of  the  middle-class  elements  as  had  the 
parliamentary  franchise.  They  were  bent,  however,  upon 
maintaining  the  constitution  of  the  kingdom  absolutely  intact, 
and  upon  preserving  the  political  and  social  order  by  which  it 
was  buttressed;  and,  although  in  the  reign  of  George  IV  (1S20- 
30)  the  more  progressive  party  leaders,  notably  Canning,  Huskis- 
son,  and  Peel,  recognized  that  the  demands  of  the  nation  would 
have  to  be  met  at  some  points,  and  notwithstanding  that  a 
number  of  liberalizing  measures  were  permitted  to  be  carried 
through  Parliament,  the  changes  which  were  made  did  not 
directly  touch  the  most  urgent  problems  of  the  day.  In  1830 
the  resignation  of  the  ministry  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington  marked 
the  end  of  the  half  century  of  Tory  ascendancy,  and  with  a 
ministry  presided  over  by  Earl  Grey  the  Whigs  returned  to  power. 
With  the  exception  of  a  few  brief  intervals,  they  and  their 
successors,  the  Liberals,  held  office  thenceforth  until  1874. 2 

1  Seep.  40. 
Bi  ginnin       ith  1815,  the  best  work  on  English  political  history  in  (In-  earlier 
nineteenth  century  is  S.  Walpole,  History  of  England  from  the  Conclusion  of  the  Great 
\\'<ir  in  1815,  6  vol  ed.,  London,  [902).     A  good  general  account  is  omtained 

in  F.  S.  Leadam,  History  of  England  from  the    Yccession  of  Aim-  in  the  Death  of 
I J  (London,  1009),  and  in  \\.  Hunt.  History  of  England  from  the  Accession  of 
George  III  lo  the  Close  of  /'ill's  l-'irsl  Administration  ("London,  1905).     Briefer  ac- 


POLITICAL  PARTIES    SINCE    1800  243 

The  Rule  of  the  Whigs  [Liberals],  1830-74. —The  political 
history  of  this  great  era  of  Whig  rule  falls  into  some  four  or  five 
stages.  The  first,  extending  from  the  accession  of  the  Grey 
ministry  in  1830  to  the  parliamentary  elections  of  1841,  was 
an  epoch  of  notable  reforms,  undertaken  and  carried  through 
mainly  by  the  Whigs,  with  the  cooperation  of  various  radical 
elements  and  of  discontented  Tories.  This  was  the  period  of 
the  first  Reform  Act  (1832),  the  emancipation  of  slaves  in  the 
British  colonies  (1833),  the  beginning  of  parliamentary  appro- 
priations for  public  education  (1833),  the  Factory  Act  (1833), 
the  New  Poor  Law  (1834),  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act 
(1835),  and  a  number  of  other  measures  designed  to  meet  urgent 
public  needs.  This  was  the  time,  furthermore,  at  which  the  party 
nomenclature  of  later  days  came  into  use ;  the  name  Whig  was 
superseded  by  that  of  Liberal,  while  the  name  Tory,  although 
not  wholly  discontinued  in  everyday  usage,  was  largely  replaced 
by  the  term  Conservative.1  The  Liberals  were  in  these  years 
peculiarly  the  party  of  reform,  but  it  must  not  be  inferred  that 
the  Conservatives  resisted  all  change  or  withheld  support  from 
all  measures  of  political  and  social  amelioration. 

The  second  stage  was  the  years  covered  by  the  Conservative 
ministry  of  Sir  Robert  Peel  (1841-46),  established  in  conse- 
quence of  the  decisive  defeat  of  the  Whigs  at  the  elections 
of  1 841.  The  memorable  achievement  of  the  Peel  government 
was  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws  and  the  repudiation  of  substan- 
tially the  whole  of  the  protective  system.  But  the  tariff  policy 
of  the  premier  divided  the  Conservative  party  into  the  protec- 
tionists or  old  Conservatives,  led  by  Disraeli  and  Lord  Derby, 
and  the  free  trade  or  liberal  Conservatives,  led  by  Aberdeen 
and  Gladstone  ;  and  the  breach  enabled  the  Liberals,  under  Lord 
John  Russell,  to  recover  office  in  1847. 

A  third  stage,  i.e.,  1847-59,  was  a  time  of  ministerial  instability. 
Disputes  between  Russell  and  Palmerston,  the  foreign  minister, 
undermined  the  Liberal  position,  and  in  1852  the  Conservatives, 
under  the  leadership  of  Derby,  returned  to  power.  In  1853, 
however,  the  free  trade  Conservatives  joined  the  Liberals,  over- 
threw Derby,  and  placed  in  office  a  coalition  ministry  under 

counts  of  the  period  1783-1830  will  be  found  in  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional 
History  of  England,  I,  409-440,  and  in  Cambridge  Modem  History,  IX,  Chap,  xxn, 
and  X,  Chaps,  xviii-xx  (see  bibliography,  pp.  856-870). 

xThe  name  "Conservative"  was  employed  by  Canning  as  early  as  1824.  Its 
use  was  already  becoming  common  when,  in  January,  1835,  Peel,  in  his  manifesto  to 
the  electors  of  Tamworth,  undertook  an  exposition  of  the  principles  of  what  he 
declared  should  henceforth  be  known  as  the  Conservative  —  not  the  Tory  —  party. 


244  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

Aberdeen.  This  government  survived  until  1855,  when,  on 
account  of  discontent  aroused  by  bis  management  of  England's 
part  in  the  Crimean  War.  Aberdeen  resigned  and  was  succeeded 
by  Palmerston,  al  the  head  of  another  Liberal  ministry.  Foreign 
difficulties  drove  Palmerston  from  office  early  in  [858,  and  the 
establishment  of  a  second  Derby  mini-try  marked  a  brief  return 
of  the  Conservatives  to  control.  Defeated,  however,  on  a 
resolution  censuring  the  Government  for  the  inadequacy  of  the 
reform  bill  introduced  by  it  in  [859,  and  also  for  the  failure  of 
Lord  Derby  to  prevent  the  war  between  France  and  Austria, 
the  ministry  resigned,  in  April,  1859.  and  Palmerston  returned 
to  power,  with  Gladstone  and  Russell  as  colleagues.  Gladstone's 
acceptance  of  office  under  Palmerston  marked  the  final  severance 
of  the  Peelites  from  the  Conservative  party  and  ended  all  hope 
of  the  reconstruction  for  which  both  Gladstone  and  Derby  had 
labored. 

A  fourth,  and  final,  stage  of  the  Liberal  period  covered  the 
years  1859  to  1874.  Its  importance  arises  not  merely  from  the 
fact  that  the  culmination  of  the  power  of  the  Liberals  during  the 
nineteenth  century  was  attained  at  this  point,  but  from  the 
further  fact  that  it  was  during  these  years  that  the  Liberal  party 
was  transformed  and  popularized  so  as  to  be  made  for  the  first 
time  really  worthy  of  the  name  that  it  bears.  As  long  as  Palmer- 
ston lived,  the  Liberals  of  the  old  school  —  men  who  abhorred 
radicalism  and  were  content  with  the  reform  of  18^2 —  were 
in  the  ascendancy.  But  after  the  premier's  death,  in  1865,  new 
ideas  and  influences  asserted  themselves  and  a  new  Liberal  party 
rapidly  came  to  the  fore.  This  regenerated  party,  whose  leader 
was  Gladstone,  definitely  rejected  the  ideal  of  laissez-faire,  took 
over  many  of  the  principles  and  policies  of  the  Radicals,  and, 
with  the  watchword  of  "  peace,  retrenchment,  and  reform," 
began  to  insist  upon  a  broader  parliamentary  franchise  and  upon 
fresh  legislation  for  the  protection  and  general  betterment  of 
the  masses.  The  new  liberalism  was  paralleled,  however, 
by  a  new  conservatism,  whose  principal  exponent  was  Disraeli. 
The  new  Conservatives  likewise  advocated  franchise  reform 
and  legislation  for  the  people,  although  they  put  more  emphasis 
upon  the  latter  than  upon  the  former;  and  they  especially 
favored  a  firm  foreign  policy,  extension  of  British  interests  in 
all  parts  of  the  world,  and  adoption  of  a  scheme  of  colonial 
federation.  They  appeared,  at  least,  to  have  less  regard  for 
peace  and  for  economy  than  had  the  Liberals. 

The  temper  and   tendencies  of  the  parties  as  they  gradually 


POLITICAL   PARTIES    SINCE    1800  245 

assumed  shape  during  the  third  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century 
have  been  admirably  characterized  by  an  English  historian 
as  follows :  "  The  parties  of  which  Gladstone  and  Disraeli  were 
the  chiefs  were  linked  by  continuous  historical  succession  with 
the  two  great  sections  or  factions  of  the  aristocracy,  or  hereditary 
oligarchy,  which  ruled  Great  Britain  in  the  eighteenth  century. 
But  each  had  been  transformed  by  national  changes  since  the 
Reform  Bill.  The  Whigs  had  become  Liberals,  the  Tories 
had  become  Conservatives.  The  Liberal  Party  had  absorbed 
part  of  the  principles  of  the  French  Revolution.  They  stood 
now  for  individual  liberty,  laying  especial  stress  on  freedom 
of  trade,  freedom  of  contract,  and  freedom  of  competition. 
They  had  set  themselves  to  break  down  the  rule  of  the  land- 
owner and  the  Church,  to  shake  off  the  fetters  of  Protection, 
and  to  establish  equality  before  the  law.  Their  acceptance 
of  egalitarian  principles  led  them  to  adopt  democratic  ideals, 
to  advocate  extension  of  the  suffrage,  and  the  emancipation 
of  the  working  classes.  Such  principles,  though  not  revolutionary, 
are  to  some  extent  disruptive  in  their  tendency ;  and  their 
adoption  by  the  Liberals  had  forced  the  Tory  Party  to  range 
themselves  in  defense  of  the  existing  order  of  things.  They 
professed  to  stand  for  the  Crown,  the  Church,  and  the  Con- 
stitution. They  were  compelled  by  the  irresistible  trend  of 
events  to  accept  democratic  principles  and  to  carry  out  demo- 
cratic reforms.  They  preferred,  in  fact,  to  carry  out  such 
reforms  themselves,  in  order  that  the  safeguards  which  they 
considered  necessary  might  be  respected.  Democratic  prin- 
ciples having  been  adopted,  both  parties  made  it  their  object 
to  redress  grievances ;  but  the  Conservatives  showed  a  natural 
predisposition  to  redress  those  grievances  which  arose  from 
excessive  freedom  of  competition,  the  Liberals  were  the  more 
anxious  to  redress  those  which  were  the  result  of  hereditary  or 
customary  privilege.  The  harmony  of  the  State  consists  in 
the  equilibrium  between  the  two  opposing  forces  of  liberty  and 
order.  The  Liberals  laid  more  stress  upon  liberty,  the  Conserv- 
atives attached  more  importance  to  order  and  established 
authority."  1 

Upon  the  death  of  Palmers  ton  in  1865  Russell  became  premier 
a  second  time.  But  in  the  following  year  a  franchise  reform 
bill  brought  forward  by  the  Government  was  defeated  in  the 
House  of  Commons,  chiefly  through  the  instrumentality  of 
a  group  of  old  Liberals  (the  "  Adullamites  ")  who  opposed  any 
1  S.  Leathes,  in  Cambridge  Modem  History,  XII,  30-31. 


GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

change  of  the  electoral  system;  and  by  curious  circumstance 
it   fell  to  the  purely  Conservative   Derby-Disraeli  ministry  of 

[866  68,  not   only  to  carry  the  6rs1   electoral  reform  since  I 
hut   to  give  the  hill  a  more  drastic  character  than  any  except 
the   most  advanced    radicals   had   expected   or   desired.    The 

results  of  the  doubling  of  the  electorate  were  manifest  in  the 
substantial  majority  which  the  new  Liberals  secured  at  the 
elections  of  1868,  and  the  Disraeli  ministry  (Derby  had  retired 
early  in  the  year)  gave  place  to  a  government  presided  over  by 
the  leader  of  the  new  Liberal  forces,  Gladstone.  The  years 
1868-74,  covered  by  the  lirst  Gladstone  ministry,  were  given 
distinction  by  a  remarkable  series  of  reforms,  including  the 
disestablishment  of  the  Church  in  Ireland  (1869),  the  enactment 
of  an  Irish  land  bill  (1870),  the  inauguration  of  national  control 
of  elementary  education  (1870),  and  the  adoption  of  the  Aus- 
tralian ballot  in  parliamentary  and  local  elections  (1872).  De- 
feated at  last,  however,  on  an  Irish  university  bill,  the  ministry 
resigned ;  and  when,  at  the  elections  of  1874,  the  country  was 
appealed  to,  the  Conservatives  obtained  a  clear  parliamentary 
majority  of  fifty  seats.  This  was  the  first  really  dependable 
majority,  indeed,  that  the  party  had  had  since  1842.  Disraeli 
became  prime  minister  and  Derby  minister  for  foreign  affairs.1 

The  Second  Era  of  Conservative  Ascendancy,  1874-1905.  — 
During  the  five  years  covered  by  the  life  of  the  second  Disraeli 
ministry  British  imperialism  reached  flood  tide.  The  reforms 
of  the  Gladstone  government  were  not  undone,  but  the  Conser- 
vative leaders  interested  themselves  principally  in  foreign  and 
colonial  questions,  and  home  affairs  received  scant  attention. 
The  result  was  public  discontent,  and  at  the  elections  of  1880 
the  Liberals  obtained  a  parliamentary  majority  of  more  than 

1  The  political  history  of  the  period  1830-74  is  covered  satisfactorily  in  W.  X. 
Molesworth,  History  of  England  from  the  Year  1830-1874,  3  vols.  (London,  1874). 
Other  general  works  include  :  Walpole,  History  of  England,  Vols.  Ill  VI,  extending 
to  1856;  H.  Paul,  History  of  Modern  England,  5  vols.  (London,  1004-1906),  Vols. 
I— III,  beginning  with  1S45;  J-  McCarthy,  History  of  Our  Own  Times  front  the 
Accession  of  Queen  Victoria,  7  vols.  (1877-1905),  Vols.  I  [II,  beginning  with  the 
eventsof  1837;  J.  F.  Bright,  History  of  England,  5  vols.  (London,  1S75-04),  Vol.  IV; 
and  S.  Low  and  L.  ('.  Sanders,  History  of  England  during  the  Reign  of  Victoria 
(London,  1907).  Briefer  treatment  will  be  found  in  May  and  Holland,  Consti- 
tutional History  of  England,  I,  440-468,  III,  67-88,  and  in  Cambridge  Modern  History, 
XI,  Chaps,  i,  xi,  xii  (see  bibliography,  pp.  867-873).  Important  biographies 
include  S.  Walpole,  Life  of  Lord  John  Russell,  2  vols.  (London,  1889) ;  II.  Maxwell, 
f  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  2  vols.  (London,  1890) ;  J.  Morley,  Life  of  William 
E.  Gladstone,  3  vols.  (London,  1903C,  J.  K.  Thursfield,  Peel  (London,  1907); 
W.  L.  Monypenny  and  G.  E.  Buckle,  njamin  Disraeli,  E.arl  of  Beacons- 

field,  6  vols.  (London,  1910-20) ;  and  S.  Lee,  Queen  Victoria,  a  Biography  (rev.  ed., 
London,  1904). 


POLITICAL  PARTIES    SINCE    1800  247 

one  hundred  seats.  It  was  incumbent  upon  the  second  Glad- 
stone government,  established  at  this  point,  to  adjust  a  number 
of  inherited  difficulties  on  the  frontiers  of  the  Empire ;  but  the 
ministry  had  no  taste  for  this  sort  of  work,  and  the  way  was 
cleared  as  speedily  as  possible  for  problems  of  a  domestic  nature. 
In  1884  the  Representation  of  the  People  Act  was  carried,  and 
in  1885  the  Redistribution  of  Seats  Act.  Now,  however,  — 
and  throughout  a  decade  and  a  half  following,  —  the  question 
which  overshadowed  all  others  was  Home  Rule  for  Ireland. 
Upon  this  many-sided  issue  governments  henceforth  rose  and 
fell,  parties  were  disrupted  and  rebuilt.  In  1885  the  Parnellites, 
or  Irish  Nationalists,  roused  by  Gladstone's  indifference  to 
Home  Rule,  and  taking  advantage  of  the  ministry's  unpopularity 
arising  from  the  failure  of  its  Egyptian  policy,  brought  about 
the  defeat  of  the  Government  on  a  measure  relating  to  the 
taxation  of  beer  and  spirits.  The  Marquis  of  Salisbury,  who 
after  the  death  of  Lord  Beaconsfield,  in  1881,  had  become 
leader  of  the  Conservatives,  made  up  a  government;  but, 
absolutely  dependent  upon  the  Irish  Nationalist  alliance,  while 
yet  irrevocably  committed  against  Home  Rule,  the  Salisbury 
ministry  found  itself  from  the  outset  in  an  impossible  position. 

The  elections  at  the  end  of  1885  yielded  the  Conservatives 
249  seats,  the  Irish  Nationalists  86,  and  the  Liberals  335  ;  and 
in  January,  1886,  the  Salisbury  ministry  retired.  Gladstone 
returned  to  power,  and  Home  Rule  forthwith  took  a  prominent 
place  in  the  formal  program  of  his  party.  Then  followed,  April 
8,  1886,  the  introduction  of  the  first  of  Gladstone's  memorable 
Home  Rule  bills.  The  measure  gave  the  Irish  a  separate  parlia- 
ment at  Dublin,  abolished  their  right  of  representation  at  West- 
minster, and  required  them  to  bear  a  proportionate  share  of  the 
expenses  of  the  Imperial  government.  It  was  thrown  out  by 
the  Commons  on  the  second  reading.  The  Conservatives 
opposed  it  solidly;  many  of  the  Irish  Nationalists  were  dis- 
satisfied with  it ;  and  upwards  of  a  hundred  Liberal  members, 
led  by  Joseph  Chamberlain,  flatly  refused  to  follow  the  majority 
of  their  fellow-partisans  in  voting  for  it.  Under  the  name  of 
Liberal  Unionists,  these  dissenters  eventually  broke  entirely 
from  their  earlier  affiliation ;  and,  inclining  more  and  more  toward 
the  position  occupied  by  the  Conservatives,  they  ended  by  losing 
their  identity  in  the  ranks  of  that  party.  Their  accession  brought 
the  Conservatives  new  vigor,  new  issues,  and  even  a  new  name ; 
for  of  late  the  term  Conservative  has  been  generally  dropped 
for  the  name  Unionist. 


248  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

The  defeat  of  Home  Rule  was  followed  by  a  national  elei  lion, 
the  result  of  which  was  the  return  of  316  Conservatives,  78 
Liberal  Unionists,  igi  Gladstone  Liberals,  and  85  [rish  National- 
ists. The  combined  unionists  had  a  majority  of  118,  and  on 
Julv  26,  1886,  the  short-lived  third  Gladstone  government  was 
succeeded  by  a  second  ministry  presided  over  by  the  Marquis 
of  Salisbury.  Home  Rule,  however,  was  not  dead.  During 
the  years  of  the  Salisbury  ministry  (1886-92)  the  government 
was  obliged  to  devote  much  attention  to  Irish  affairs,  and  in 
1892  the  Liberals  were  returned  to  office  on  a  platform  which 
expressly  stipulated  Home  Rule  for  Ireland.1  The  Conservative 
appeal  to  the  country  at  this  time  was  made  on  the  ground,  first, 
that  Home  Rule  should  be  resisted,  and,  second,  that  the  Govern- 
ment's achievements  in  reform  and  constructive  legislation 
entitled  the  party  to  continuance  in  power ;  but  in  the  new  parlia- 
ment there  was  an  adverse  majority  of  forty,  and  on  August 
18  Gladstone,  for  the  fourth  time,  was  requested  to  form  a 
ministry.2  The  elections  of  1892  are  of  farther  interest  because 
they  marked  the  first  appearance  of  independent  labor  repre- 
sentatives in  Parliament.  Miners'  delegates  and  an  agricultural 
laborer  had  been  elected  before,  but  they  had  identified  them- 
selves with  the  radical  wing  of  the  Liberals.  There  were  now 
returned,  however,  four  members,  including  John  Burns  and 
Keir  Hardie,  who  chose  to  hold  aloof  and,  as  they  expressed  it, 
"  to  sit  in  opposition  until  they  should  cross  the  House  to  form 
a  labor  government."  3  The  Home  Rule  bill  which  Gladstone 
introduced  in  February,  1893,  differed  from  its  predecessor 
of  1886  principally  in  not  excluding  the  Irish  from  representation 
at  Westminster.  It  passed  the  House  of  Commons  by  a  majority 
of  thirty-four,  but  the  upper  chamber  rejected  it  by  a  vote  of 
419  to  41.  In  the  face  of  such  opposition  it  seemed  useless  to 
press  the  issue,  and  the  bill  was  dropped.  The  House  of  Lords, 
whose  power  in  legislation  became  greater  at  this  point  than 
at  any  time  since  [832,  balked  the  Government  at  every  turn, 
and  in  March,  1894,  Gladstone,  aged  and  weary  of  parliamentary 
strife,  retired  from  office.  His  last  speech  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons was  a  sharp  arraignment  of  the  House  of  Lords,  with  a 

1  This  was  the  "  Newcastle  Program,"  drawn  up  al  a  1  onyention  <>f  the  National 
Liberal  Federation  ut  Newcastle  in  '  >i  tober,  [891.     Hems  in  the  program  in  addi 
tion  to  Home  Rule  included  thedisi   tabli  hment  of  the  1  burche   in  Wales  and  Scot 
land,  a  lo<  al  veto  on  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors,  abolition  of  the  plural  frani  hi  1  , 
and  legisl  oing  employers'  liability  and  limiting  the  hours  of  labor. 

2  C.  A.  Whitmore,  Six  Years  of  Unionist  Government,  1886-18Q2  (London,  1892). 

3  On  the  rise  of  the  Labor  party  see  p.  278. 


POLITICAL  PARTIES    SINCE    1800  249 

forecast  of  the  clash  which  eventually  would  lead  (and,  in  point 
of  fact,  has  led)  to  the  curtailment  of  the  powers  of  that  chamber. 

Lord  Rosebery,  who  had  been  foreign  secretary,  assumed 
the  premiership.  But  in  June,  1895,  the  ministry  suffered  a 
defeat,  and  Lord  Salisbury  was  for  the  third  time  asked  to  form 
a  government.  The  retirement  of  Gladstone  brought  to  light 
numerous  rifts  within  the  Liberal  party,  and  when  the  new 
ministry,  in  July,  appealed  to  the  country,  with  Home  Rule  as 
a  paramount  issue,  its  supporters  secured  a  majority  of  152 
seats  over  the  Liberals  and  Nationalists  combined.  The  Liberal 
Unionists  elected  71  members;  and  to  cement  the  Con- 
servative-Unionist alliance  Lord  Salisbury  made  up  a  ministry 
in  which  the  Unionist  elements  were  represented  by  Joseph 
Chamberlain  as  colonial  secretary,  Viscount  Goschen  as  first 
lord  of  the  admiralty,  and  the  Duke  of  Devonshire  as  president 
of  the  council.  The  premier  himself  returned  to  the  post  of 
foreign  secretary,  and  his  nephew,  Arthur  J.  Balfour  —  once 
again  Government  leader  in  the  Commons  —  to  that  of  first 
lord  of  the  treasury.  The  accession  of  the  third  Salisbury 
ministry  marked  the  beginning  of  a  full  decade  of  Unionist  rule. 
In  1902  Lord  Salisbury,  whose  fourth  ministry,  dating  from  the 
elections  of  1900,  was  continuous  with  his  third,  retired  from 
public  life ;  but  he  was  succeeded  in  the  premiership  by  Mr. 
Balfour,  and  the  personnel  and  policies  of  the  Government 
continued  otherwise  unchanged.1 

During  the  larger  part  of  this  Unionist  decade  the  Liberal 
party,  rent  by  factional  disputes  and  personal  rivalries,  offered 
only  formal  and  ineffective  opposition.2  The  Home  Rule  ques- 
tion fell  into  the  background  ;  and  although  the  Unionists  carried 
a  considerable  amount  of  social  and  industrial  legislation,  the 
interests  of  the  period  center  largely  in  the  Government's  policies 

1  The  most  useful  works  on  the  party  history  of  the  period  1874-95  are  Paul, 
History  of  Modern  England,  Vols.  IV- V,  and  Morley,  Life  of  W.  E.  Gladstone, \o\.  III. 
J.  McCarthy's  History  of  Our  Own  Times,  Vols.  IV-VI,  covers  the  ground  in  a 
popular  way.  Useful  brief  accounts  are  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  History 
of  England,  III,  88-127,  and  Cambridge  M  odern  History ,  XII,  Chap,  iii  (bibliography, 
pp.  853-855).  A  book  of  some  value  is  H.  Whates,  The  Third  Salisbury  Adminis- 
tration, 18Q5-IQO0  (London,  1001). 

2  The  two  principal  aspirants  to  the  succession  were  Lord  Rosebery  and  Sir 
William  Vernon-Harcourt.  Rosebery  represented  the  imperialistic  element  of 
Liberalism  and  advocated  a  return  of  the  party  to  the  general  position  which  it  had 
occupied  prior  to  the  split  on  Home  Rule.  Harcourt  and  the  majority  of  the  party 
opposed  imperialism  and  insisted  upon  attention  to  a  program  of  social  reform. 
From  Gladstone's  retirement  to  1896  leadership  devolved  upon  Rosebery,  but  from 
1896  to  the  beginning  of  1899  Harcourt  was  the  nominal  leader,  although  Rosebery 
continued  hardly  less  influential  than  before. 


250  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

and  achievements  in  the  domain  of  foreign  and  colonial  affairs. 
The  most  hotly  contested  issue  of  the  decade  was  imperialism; 
the  most  commanding  public  figure  was  Joseph  Chamberlain; 

the  most  notable  enterprise  undertaken  was  the  war  in  South 
Africa.  In  1000  the  ministerial  leaders  decided  to  take  advan- 
tage of  the  public  spirit  engendered  by  the  war  to  procure  a 
fresh  lease  of  power  for  their  party.  Parliament  was  dissolved 
and.  on  the  eve  of  the  announcement  of  the  annexation  of  the 
Transvaal,  a  general  election  was  held.  The  Liberals,  led  since 
early  in  1899  by  Sir  Henry  Campbell-Bannerman,  charged  the 
Unionists  with  neglect  of  social  and  industrial  matters,  pledged 
themselves  to  educational,  housing,  and  temperance  reform, 
and  sought  especially  to  convince  the  electorate  that  they  could 
be  trusted  to  defend  the  legitimate  interests  of  the  Empire 
abroad.  The  Government  forced  the  fight  mainly  upon  the 
issue  of  South  African  policy,  and,  representing  the  opposition 
as  "  Little  Englanders,"  went  before  the  people  with  the  argu- 
ment that  there  could  be  no  turning  back  from  the  course  that 
had  been  entered  upon  in  South  Africa,  and  that  the  present 
ministry  was  entitled  to  an  opportunity  to  carry  to  completion 
the  work  that  it  had  begun.  The  appeal  was  successful.  The 
Conservatives  obtained  334  seats  and  the  Liberal  Unionists 
68  —  a  total  of  402  ;  while  the  Liberals  and  Laborites  secured 
only  186  and  the  Nationalists  82  —  a  total  of  268.  The  Govern- 
ment majority  in  the  new  parliament  was  thus  134,  almost  pre- 
cisely that  of  1895.1 

After  the  elections  dissension  within  the  Liberal  ranks  broke 
out  afresh.  The  Rosebery  wing  maintained  that,  the  South 
African  war  having  been  entered  upon,  it  was  the  duty  of  all 
Englishmen  to  support  it,  and  that  the  Unionist  government 
should  be  attacked  on  this  subject  only  on  the  charge  of  mis- 
management. In  July,  1 901,  Campbell-Bannerman  was  moved 
by  the  weakness  of  his  position  to  demand  of  his  fellow-partisans 
that  they  either  ratify  or  repudiate  his  leadership  of  the  party 
in  the  Commons.  Approval  was  given,  but  no  further  progress 
was  made.  More  and  more  it  became  clear  that  there  could 
be  no  real  revival  of  Liberalism  until  the  war  in  South  Africa 
should  have  been  ended  and  the  larger  imperial  problems  in- 
volved in  it  solved.  For  a  time  the  only  clear-cut  parliamentary 
opposition  offered  the  Government  was  that  of  the  frankly  pro- 
Boer  Irish  Nationalists. 

lW.  Clarke,  "The  Decline  in  English  Liberalism,"  in  Polit.  Sri.  Quor.,  Sept., 
1001  ;   P.  Ilumelle,  "Les  elections  anglaises,"  in  Ann.  des  Sci.  Polil.,  Nov.,  1900. 


POLITICAL  PARTIES    SINCE    1800  251 

The  Liberal  Revival.  —  The  rehabilitation  of  the  Liberal 
party  took  place  during  the  years  1902-05.  It  was  fore- 
shadowed by  the  famous  Chesterfield  speech  of  Lord  Rosebery, 
delivered  December  16,  1901,  although  the  immediate  effect 
of  that  effort  was  merely  to  accentuate  party  cleavages,1  and  it 
was  made  possible  by  a  reversion  of  the  national  mind  from 
the  war  to  domestic  questions  and  interests.  More  specifically, 
it  was  the  product  of  opposition  to  the  Education  Act  of  1902, 
of  public  disapproval  of  what  seemed  to  be  the  growing  arrogance 
of  the  Unionist  majority  in  the  House  of  Lords,  and,  above  all, 
of  the  demoralization  wrought  in  the  ranks  of  Unionism  by  the 
rise  of  the  issue  of  preferential  tariffs.  In  a  speech  to  his  con- 
stituents at  Birmingham,  May  15,  1903,  Mr.  Chamberlain, 
lately  returned  from  a  visit  to  South  Africa  and  now  at  the 
zenith  of  his  career,  startled  the  nation  by  declaring  that  the  time 
had  come  for  Great  Britain  to  abandon  the  free  trade  doctrines 
of  the  Manchester  school  and  to  knit  the  Empire  more  closely 
together,  and  at  the  same  time  to  promote  the  economic  interests 
of  both  the  colonies  and  the  mother  country,  by  the  adoption 
of  a  system  of  preferential  duties  on  imported  foodstuffs.  Later 
in  the  year  the  gifted  exponent  of  this  novel  program  started  a 
vigorous  speaking  campaign  in  defense  of  his  proposals,  and  a 
large  and  representative,  unofficial  tariff  commission  was  set  up, 
charged  with  the  task  of  framing,  after  due  investigation,  a 
tariff  system  which  would  meet  the  needs  alleged  to  exist.  Among 
the  Unionist  leaders  a  division  of  opinion  arose  which  portended 
open  rupture.  The  rank  and  file  of  the  party  was  nonplused 
and  undecided,  and  for  many  months  the  subject  absorbed 
attention  to  the  exclusion  of  very  nearly  everything  else.2 

1  In  this  speech,  delivered  at  a  great  Liberal  meeting,  a  program  was  outlined 
upon  which  Rosebery  virtually  offered  to  resume  the  leadership  of  his  party.  The 
question  of  Boer  independence  was  recognized  to  be  settled,  but  leniency  toward  the 
defeated  people  was  advocated ;  a  general  election,  immediately  after  the  close  of  the 
war,  was  demanded,  and  reorganization  of  the  army  and  the  navy,  and  reform_  of 
the  educational  system  and  of  the  public  finances,  were  named  as  issues  upon  which 
the  Liberals  must  take  an  unequivocal  stand,  as  also  temperance  reform  and  legisla- 
tion upon  the  housing  of  the  poor. 

2  See  pp.  297-301  below.  The  literature  of  the  Tariff  Reform  movement  in 
Great  Britain  is  voluminous.  The  nature  of  the  protectionist  proposals  may  be 
studied  at  first  hand  in  J.  Chamberlain,  Imperial  Union  and  Tar  if  Reform;  Speeches 
Delivered  from  May  15  to  November  4,  1903  (London,  1903).  Useful  discussions  in- 
clude T.  W.  Mitchell,  "The  Development  of  Mr.  Chamberlain's  Fiscal  Policy," 
in  Ann.  of  Amer.  Acad,  of  Polil.  and  Soc.  Sci.,  XXIII,  No.  1  (Jan.,  1904) ;  R.  Leth- 
bridge,  "The  Evolution  of  Tariff  Reform  in  the  Tory  Party,"  in  Nineteenth  Cent., 
June,  190S ;  and  L.  L.  Price,  "An  Economic  View  of  Mr.  Chamberlain's  Proposals," 
in  Econ.  Rev.,  April,  1904.  See  also  S.  H.  Jeyes,  Life  of  Joseph  Chamberlain,  2 
vols.  (London,  1 903),  and  A.  Mackintosh,  Joseph  Chamberlain  ;  an  Honest  Biography 
(rev.  ed.,  London,  1914). 


GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

In  this  situation  the  Liberals  found  their  opportunity.  Almost 
unanimously  oppose!  to  the  suggested  departure,  they  assumed 
with  avidity  the  r61e  of  defenders  of  England's  "  sacred  prini  iplc 
of  free  trade  "  and  utilized  to  the  utmost  the  appeal  to  the  work- 
ing classes  in  behalf  of  cheap  bread.  Mr.  Chamberlain  denied 
that  hi>  scheme  meant  a  general  reversal  of  the  economi<  policy 
of  the  nation,  but  in  the  judgmenl  of  most  people  the  issue  was 
squarely  joined  between  the  fundamental  principle  of  free  trade 
and  that  of  protection.  Throughout  [904  and  1005  the  Govern- 
ment found  itself  ever  more  embarrassed  by  the  fiscal  question, 
as  well  as  by  difficulties  arising  from  the  administration  of  the 
Education  Act,  the  regulation  of  Chinese  labor  in  South  Africa. 
and  a  number  of  other  urgent  tasks  ;  the  by-elections  showed  an 
unmistakable  drift  toward  Liberalism. 

Hesitating  long,  but  at  the  last  bowing  somewhat  abruptly 
before  the  gathering  storm,  Mr.  Balfour  tendered  his  resignation 
on  December  4,  1905.  The  Government  had  a  working  majority 
of  seventy-six  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  the  parliament 
elected  in  1900  had  still  another  year  of  life.  In  the  House  of 
Lords  the  Unionists  outnumbered  their  opponents  ten  to  one. 
The  administration,  however,  had  suffered  an  irreparable  loss 
of  prestige,  and  the  difficulties  arising  from  the  fiscal  cleavage 
appeared  insuperable.  Unable  to  follow  Mr.  Chamberlain  in  his 
projects,  the  premier  had  grown  weary  of  the  attempt  to  balance 
himself  on  the  tight  rope  of  ambiguity  between  the  free  trade 
and  protectionist  wings  of  his  party.  Not  caring,  however,  to 
give  his  opponents  the  advantage  that  wrould  accrue  from  an 
immediate  dissolution  of  Parliament,  to  be  followed  by  an  elec- 
tion turning  on  issues  raised  by  the  record  of  the  ten  years  of 
Unionist  rule,  he  chose  simply  to  resign  and  so  to  compel  the 
formation  of  a  new  ministry  which  itself  would  be  directly 
on  trial  when  the  inevitable  elections  should  come. 

The  king  named  as  premier  the  Liberal  leader,  Campbell- 
Banncrman,  who  forthwith  made  up  a  cabinet  of  somewhat 
exceptional  strength  in  which  the  premier  himself  occupied  the 
post  of  first  lord  of  the  treasury,  Sir  Edward  Grey  that  of  foreign 
affairs,  Mr.  Asquith  that  of  the  exchequer,  Mr.  Haldane  that  of 
war,  Mr.  Lloyd-George  that  of  president  of  the  board  of  trade, 
Mr.  Burns  that  of  president  of  the  local  government  board,  Mr. 
Birrell  that  of  president  of  the  board  of  education,  and  Mr. 
Bryce  that  of  chief  secretary  for  Ireland.  On  January  8,  1906, 
the  "  Khaki  Parliament  "  was  dissolved,  a  general  election  was 
ordered,  and  the  new  parliament  was  announced  to  meet  at  the 


POLITICAL   PARTIES    SINCE    1800  253 

earliest  legal  date,  February  13.  The  campaign  that  followed 
was  exceptionally  lively.  The  Unionists,  being  themselves 
divided  beyond  repair  on  the  question  of  the  tariff,  pinned  their 
hope  to  a  disruption  of  the  Liberal  forces  on  Home  Rule.  The 
Liberal  leaders,  however,  steadfastly  refused  to  allow  the  Irish 
question  to  be  brought  into  the  foreground.  Recognizing  that 
Home  Rule  in  the  immediate  future  was  an  impossibility,  but 
pledging  themselves  to  a  policy  looking  to  its  establishment  by 
degrees,  they  contrived  to  force  the  battle  principally  upon  the 
issue  of  free  trade  and,  in  general,  to  direct  their  most  telling 
attack  upon  the  fiscal  record  and  fiscal  policies  of  their  opponents. 
The  result  was  an  overwhelming  Liberal  triumph.  In  a  total  of 
6>555>301  votes,1  4,026,704  were  cast  for  Liberal,  Nationalist, 
and  Labor  candidates,  and  only  2,528,597  for  Conservatives  and 
Unionists.  There  were  returned  to  the  House  of  Commons 
374  Liberals,  84  Nationalists,  54  Laborites,  131  Conservatives, 
and  27  Liberal  Unionists,  assuring  the  Liberals  and  their  allies 
a  clear  preponderance  of  354.2  Prior  to  the  elections  careful 
observers  believed  that  the  restoration  of  the  Liberals  to  power 
was  certain ;  but  a  victory  of  such  proportions  was  not  dreamed 
of  by  the  most  ardent  of  the  party's  well-wishers.3 

The  Achievements  of  the  Liberals,  1906-09.  —  The  Liberal 
ascendancy,  thus  made  secure,  lasted  until  the  exigencies  of  war 
required  the  setting  up  of  a  coalition  government  in  191 5.  This 
decade  was  one  of  the  most  interesting  and  important  in  the 
political  history  of  modern  Britain.  Its  significance  arises 
principally  from  the  vast  amount  of  social  and  economic  legis- 
lation which  the  successive  Liberal  ministries  sought  to  place  on 
the  statute  book.  Much  of  this  proposed  legislation  was  suc- 
cessfully carried  through,  and  is  now  in  effect.  Some  important 
parts  of  it,  however,  failed  of  adoption,  chiefly  because  of  the 
opposition  of  the  Unionist  majority  in  the  House  of  Lords  ;  and  a 
direct  outcome  of  the  conflicts  that  arose  between  the  Liberals 
and  the  opposition  in  the  upper  chamber  was  the  important  con- 
stitutional readjustments  provided  for  in  the  Parliament  Act 
of  191 1  already  described.  Speaking  broadly,  the  Liberals  were 
restored  to  power  because  the  nation  wanted  certain  things  which 

1  The  number  of  electors  in  the  United  Kingdom  in  1906  was  7,266,708. 

2  Of  the  Opposition,  102  were  Tariff  Reformers  of  the  Chamberlain  school  and 
only  16  were  thoroughgoing  "Free  Fooders." 

3  M.  Caudel,  "Les  elections  generales  anglaises  (Janvier  1906),"  in  Ann.  des  Sci. 
Pol.,  March,  1906;  E.  de  Noirmont,  "Les  elections  anglaises  de  Janvier  1906; 
les  resultats  generaux,"  in  Quest.  Dipl.  et  Colon.,  Mar.,  1,  1906;  E.  Porritt,  "Party 
Conditions  in  England,"  in  Polit.  Sci.  Qiiar.,  June,  1906. 


:S4  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

ii  seemed  unlikely  to  obtain  at  the  hands  of  the  Unionists. 
Chief  among  these  were:  (i)  reduction  of  publir  expenditures 

and  curbing  of  national  extravagance;  (2)  remission  of  taxa- 
tion imposed  during  the  South  African  war;  (3)  reform  of  the 
army;  and  (4)  social  reforms,  embracing  provision  for  old 
age  pensions,  relief  of  unemployment,  regulation  of  the  liquor 
traffic,  and  the  liberation  of  education  from  ecclesiastical  domi- 
nation. The  nation  was  plainly  desirous,  too,  that  the  policy 
of  free  trade,  now  threatened  by  the  Chamberlain  proposal-, 
should  be  maintained  without  impairment.  To  all  of  these 
policies,  and  more,  the  Liberals  were  unreservedly  committed 
when  they  entered  office. 

During  the  years  between  the  elections  of  1906  and  those  of 
iqio  the  Liberal  governments  presided  over  successively  by  Mr. 
Campbell-Bannerman  and  Mr.  Asquith  1  made  honest  effort  to 
redeem  the  election  pledges  of  the  party.     They  stopped  the 
alarming  increase  of  the  national  debt  and  made  provision  for 
debt  reduction  at  a  rate  equaled  in  but  two  brief  periods  since  the 
middle  of  the  nineteenth  century.     They  repealed  approximately 
half  of  the  war  taxes  which  were  still  operative  when  they  as- 
sumed  office.     They   reduced   the   national   expenditures   tem- 
porarily,   although   the   normal   increase   of   civil   outlays,    the 
adoption  of  old  age  pensions,  and,  above  all,  the  demand  of  the 
propertied  interests  for  the  maintenance  of  a  two-power  naval 
standard,  eventually  brought  about  an  increase  rather  than  a 
diminution  of  the  sums  carried  by  the  annual  budget.    In  accord- 
ance with  a  scheme  worked  out  by  Mr.  Haldane,  they  remodeled 
the  army.     They  upheld  free  trade.     They  made  no  headway 
toward  Home  Rule,  but  in  1909  they  enacted  an  Irish  Univer- 
sities Bill  and  an  Irish  Land  Purchase  Bill  which  were  regarded 
as  very  favorable  to  Irish  interests.     Above  all,  they  labored 
to  meet  the  demand  of  the  nation  for  social  legislation.     The 
prevalence  of  unemployment,  the  misery  caused  by  widespread 
poverty,  the  recurrence  of  strikes  and  other  industrial  disorders, 
the  growing  volume  of  emigration,  and  other  related  aspects  of 
England's  social  unsettlement,  served  to  fix  in  the  public  mind 
the  idea  that  the  state  must  plan,  undertake,  and  bear  the  cost 
of  huge  projects  of  social  and  industrial  amelioration  and  of 
democratization  and  reform.     In  this  portion  of  their  program 
the    Liberals    were    only    partially    successful.     They    enacted 

1  Mr.  Campbell-Bannerman  resigned  Vprfl  5,  iqoR,  and  was  succeeded  by  Mr. 
Asquith,  who,  in  turn,  was  succeeded  as  I  hancellor  of  the  Exchequer  by  Mr.  Lloyd 
George. 


POLITICAL  PARTIES    SINCE    1800  255 

important  labor  legislation,  including  a  Workman's  Compensa- 
tion Act  (1906),  a  Trade  Unions  and  Trade  Disputes  Act  (1906), 
an  eight-hour  working  day  in  mines  (1908),  a  Labor  Exchanges 
Act  (1909),  a  Trade  Boards  Act  (1909),  and  in  1908  they  estab- 
lished an  elaborate  system  of  old  age  pensions.1  On  account  of 
the  opposition  of  the  House  of  Lords,  however,  they  failed  to 
carry  the  bill  of  1906  for  the  abolition  of  plural  voting,  the  hotly 
contested  measure  of  1906  providing  for  the  undenomination- 
alizing  of  the  schools,  the  Aliens  Bill  of  1906,  the  Land  Values 
Bill  of  1907,  the  Licensing  Bill  of  1908,  the  London  Elections  Bill 
of  1909,  and,  finally,  the  Finance  Bill  of  1909,  whose  rejection 
by  the  Lords  led  to  a  dissolution  of  Parliament  and  the  ordering 
of  national  elections  in  January,  19 10. 

The  Liberals  vs.  the  Lords :  the  Elections  of  January  and 
December,  1910.  —  Four  years  of  conflict  with  the  Conservative 
majority  in  the  upper  chamber  brought  the  Liberals  to  the  con- 
viction that  it  was  useless  to  attempt  to  go  farther  until  certain 
fundamentals  were  settled.  The  first  was  the  assurance  of  rev- 
enues adequate  to  meet  the  growing  demands  upon  the  treasury. 
The  second  was  the  alteration  of  the  character  of  the  House  of 
Lords  so  as  to  make  certain  the  predominance  of  the  popular 
branch  of  Parliament  in  finance  and  legislation.  During  the  two 
years  (1909-11)  while  these  great  issues  were  under  debate  the 
nation  was  stirred  to  its  depths  and  party  conflict  was  of  unprece- 
dented intensity.  On  the  side  of  finance,  Unionists  and  Liberals 
were  in  substantial  agreement  upon  the  policies  — ■  especially 
old  age  pensions  and  naval  expansion  —  which  made  larger 
outlays  necessary ;  the  point  on  which  they  differed  was  the 
sources  from  which  the  necessary  funds  should  be  obtained. 
The  solution  offered  in  the  Lloyd  George  budget  of  1909  was  the 
imposition  of  new  taxes  on  land  and  the  increase  of  liquor  license 
duties  and  of  the  taxes  on  incomes  and  inheritances.  The  new 
burdens  were  intended  to  fall  almost  exclusively  upon  the  prop- 
ertied, especially  the  landholding,  classes.  To  this  plan  the 
Unionists  offered  the  alternative  of  tariff  reform,  urging  that  the 
needed  revenues  should  be  derived  from  duties  laid  principally 
upon  imported  foodstuffs,  although  the  free  trade  members 
of  the  party  could  not  consistently  support  this  proposal.  The 
rejection  of  the  Finance  Bill  by  the  Lords,  November  30,  1909, 
shattering  the  precedent  of  three  centuries,  brought  to  a  head 
the  question  of  the  mending  or  ending  of  the  Lords  ;  and  although 

1  For  a  brief  account  of  this  legislation  see  Ogg,  Economic  Development  of  Modern 
Europe,  Chaps,  xvii,  xix,  xxv. 


256  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

the  elections  of  January,  1010,  were  fought  upon  the  immediate 
issue  of  the  Government's  finance  proposals,  the  question  of  the 
upper  chamber  could  by  no  means  be  kepi  in  the  background. 
The  results  of  this  election  were  disappointing  to  all  parties  save 
the  Nationalists.  The  final  returns  gave  the  Liberals  ^74  seats, 
the  Unionists  273,  the  Nationalists  82,  and  the  Laborites  41. 
The  Asquith  government  continued  in  office,  hut  it  was  hence- 
forth absolutely  dependent  upon  the  cooperation  of  the  Labor 
and  Nationalist  groups.  There  was,  of  course,  no  very  clear 
pronouncement  upon  the  great  issues  involved;  yet  it  was  a 
foregone  conclusion  that  the  tax  proposals  would  be  enacted, 
that  some  reconstitution  of  the  House  of  Lords  would  be  under- 
taken, and  that  free  trade  would,  at  least  for  a  while  longer,  be 
scrupulously  maintained.1 

The  developments  of  the  next  year  and  a  half  have  been  noted 
elsewhere.2  They  comprised,  in  the  main:  (1)  reintroduction 
and  enactment  of  the  Finance  Bill  of  1909  ;  (2)  announcement  by 
Mr.  Asquith  of  the  Government's  proposals  for  the  alteration 
of  the  relations  between  the  two  houses  of  Parliament ;  (3) 
adoption  by  the  House  of  Lords  of  the  principle  of  Lord  Rose- 
bery's  projected  scheme  of  upper  chamber  reform ;  (4)  interrup- 
tion and  postponement  of  the  contest,  caused  by  the  death  of 
Edward  VII ;  (5)  failure  of  the  Constitutional  Conference  in  the 
summer  of  1910;  (6)  adoption  by  the  second  chamber  of  the  re- 
form resolutions  of  Lord  Lansdowne ;  (7)  dissolution  of  Parlia- 
ment, after  a  period  of  but  ten  months,  to  afford  an  opportunity 
for  a  fresh  appeal  to  the  country  on  the  specific  issue  of  second 
chamber  reform;  (8)  elections  of  December,  1910,  and  the 
assembling  of  the  new  parliament  in  January,   191 1;  and    (9) 

1  R.  G.  LeVy,  "Le  budget  radical  anglais,"  in  Rev.  Polit.  el  Pari.,  Oct.  10,  1909; 
G.  L.  Fox,  "The  Lloyd  George  Budget,"  in  Yale  Rev.,  Feb.,  1910;  E.  Porritt, 
"The  Struggle  over  the  Lloyd  George  Budget,"  in  Quar.  Jour,  of  Econ.,  Feb., 
1910;  P.  Hamelle,  "Les  elections  anglaiscs,"  in  Ann.  des  Set.  Polit.,  Mi 
1910;  S.  Brooks,  "The  British  Elections,"  in  N.  Amer.  Rev.,  Mar.,  1910;  W.  T. 
Stead,  "The  General  Elections  in  Great  Britain,"  in  Rev.  of  Revs.,  F<  b.,  C910.  A 
useful  survey  is  Britannicus,  "Four  Years  of  British  Liberalism,"  in  X.  Amer.  Rev., 
Feb.,  1910,  and  a  more  detailed  one  is  C.  T.  King,  The  Asquith  Parliament,  1906- 
1909;  a  Popular  History  of  its  Men  and  Measures  (London,  1910).  A  valuable 
article  is  E.  Porritt,  "British  Legislation  in  1906,"  in  Yale  Rev.,  Feb.,  1907.  A 
French  work  of  some  value  is  P.  Millet,  La  crise  anglais  (Paris,  1910).  A  useful 
collection  of  speeches  on  the  public  issues  of  the  period  1906-09  is  W.  S.  Churchill, 
Liberalism  and  the  Social  Problem  (London,  1909).  The  nature  and  effects  of  the 
Finance  Act  based  on  the  Lloyd  George  budget  of  iqoq  and  finally  passed  in  19 10 
are  described  in  B.  Mallet,  British  Budgets,  1887-88  to  191 2-1 3  (London,  1913), 
289-331.  The  system  of  taxation  in  operation  when  the  controversy  began  is  ex- 
plained in  W.  M.  J.  \\  illiams,  The  King's  Revenue  (London,  1908). 

1  See  pp.  150-156. 


POLITICAL  PARTIES    SINCE    1800  257 

reintroduction  and  final  enactment,  in  the  summer  of  1911,  of 
the  Government's  momentous  Parliament  Bill.  At  the  Decem- 
ber elections  the  several  contending  forces  proved  so  solidly 
intrenched  that  the  party  quotas  in  the  House  of  Commons 
remained  practically  unchanged.  They  stood,  in  the  new 
parliament,  as  follows:  Liberals,  272;  Unionists,  272;  Nation- 
alists, 76;  Independent  Nationalists  (followers  of  William 
O'Brien),  8;  and  Laborites,  42.  The  Unionists  gained  sub- 
stantially in  Lancashire,  Devonshire,  and  Cornwall,  but  lost 
an  equal  amount  of  ground  in  London  and  in  scattering  boroughs.1 

From  the  Parliament  Act  to  the  Great  War.  —  Fortified  with  a 
constitutional  amendment  enabling  laws  to  be  enacted  without 
the  assent  of  the  House  of  Lords,  and  reasonably  assured  of  the 
continued  support  of  the  Labor  and  Nationalist  groups,  the 
Asquith  ministry  now  addressed  itself  to  a  comprehensive  and 
long-deferred  legislative  program.  The  promise  given  in  the 
Parliament  Act  to  reconstitute  the  upper  chamber  on  a  popular 
basis  was  held  in  abeyance ;  as  a  matter  of  fact,  when  the  Great 
War  came  on  this  task  had  not  yet  been  reached.  But  legisla- 
tion on  four  principal  subjects  was  vigorously  pushed:  the 
protection  of  the  working  classes,  the  disestablishment  of  the 
Church  in  Wales,  electoral  reform,  and  —  most  important  of  all 
—  Irish  Home  Rule. 

The  first  object  was  largely  attained,  and  with  comparatively 
little  controversy  of  a  strictly  partisan  character,  in  (1)  a  National 
Insurance  Act  of  191 1 ,  setting  up  a  general  system  of  sickness  and 
invalidity  insurance,  and  also  a  scheme  of  unemployment  insur- 
ance in  the  building  and  engineering  trades,  (2)  a  Minimum  Wage 
Act,  passed  in  191 2  to  terminate  a  general  strike  among  the  min- 
ers, and  (3)  a  Trade  Union  Act  of  19 13,  which  sought  to  relieve 
trade  unions  from  part  of  the  disabilities  imposed  upon  them 
by  the  Osborne  Judgment  of  1909.2    A  Welsh  Disestablishment 

1  On  the  elections  of  December,  1910,  see  P.  Hamelle,  "La  crise  anglaise:  les 
elections  de  decembre  1910,"  in  Rev.  des  Sci.  Polit.,  July-Aug.,  1911 ;  E.  T.  Cook, 
"The  Election  —  Before  and  After,"  in  Contemp.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1911;  Bntannicus, 
"The  British  Elections,"  in  N.  Amer.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1911.  The  best  account  of  the 
adoption  of  the  Parliament  Bill  is  A.  L.  P.  Dennis,  "  The  Parliament  Act  of  1911," 
in  Amer.  Polit.  Sci.  Rev.,  May  and  Aug.,  1012.     For  other  references  see  p.  162. 

2  On  the  National  Insurance  Act  see  Ogg,  Economic  Development  of  Modern  Europe, 
612-625;  E.  Porritt,  "The  British  National  Insurance  Act,"  in  Polit.  Sci.  Quar., 
June,  191 2 ;  R.  F.  Foerster,  "The  British  National  Insurance  Act,"  in  Quar.  Jour. 
Econ.,  Feb.,  1912;  O.  Clark,  The  National  Insurance  Act  of  ipn  (London,  1912) ; 
and  A.  S.  Carr,  W.  H.  Stuart,  and  J.  H.  Taylor,  National  Insurance  (London,  191 2). 
The  text  of  the  Insurance  Act  is  printed  in  Bulletin  of  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor,  No.  102 
(Washington,  1912).  On  the  Trade  Union  Act  see  W.  M.  Geldart,  The  Present 
Law  of  Trade  Disputes  and  Trade  Unions  (London,  1914),  published  also  in  Polit. 
Quar.,  May,  1914- 


258  GOVERNMENTS  01    EUROPE 

Bill,  on  the  general  lines  of  a  bill  submitted  in  moo,  hut  conceding 
c  financial  aid  to  the  disestablished  church,  was  introduced 
in  i o i  j.  and,  aiu-i-  being  twice  rejected  by  the  House  of  Lords, 
became,  in  1914,  the  first  measure  to  be  placed  on  the  statute 
book  under  the  terms  of  the  Parliament  Act.  A  Franchise 
and  Registration  Bill,  providing  for  manhood  suffrage,  abolishing 
plural  voting  and  the  separate  representation  of  the  universities, 
and  simplifying  the  registration  system,  was  introduced  in  the 
early  summer  of  [912.  Agitation  for  woman  suffrage  was  now 
going  forward  on  a  gigantic  scale,  and  tin-  Government's  elec- 
toral bill  became  so  encumbered  with  amendments  that,  under 
a  ruling  by  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons,  tin-  measure- 
was  withdrawn,  January  31,  1913.  Embarrassment  caused 
by  the  campaign  of  the  woman  suffragists,  combined  with  pres- 
sure of  other  business,  prevented  the  effort  for  general  electoral 
legislation  from  being  resumed  before  the  war  broke  out,  although 
a  bill  to  abolish  plural  voting  was  twice  passed  by  the  House  of 
Commons  and,  when  sidetracked  by  the  war,  seemed  certain 
to  become  law  under  the  terms  of  the  Parliament  Act.1 

Throughout  the  period  the  center  of  the  political  stage  was 
occupied,  however,  by  the  Irish  question.  The  fact  may  merely 
be  noted  here,  because  the  phases  through  which  this  great 
controversy  passed  will  be  duly  outlined  in  a  later  chapter. 
Introduced  in  the  House  of  Commons  April  11,  1912,  the 
Government's  Home  Rule  Bill  finally  became  law  only  as  the 
great  international  conflict  was  starting,  two  and  one  half  years 
later,  and  only  to  be  immediately  withheld  from  actual  operation 
pending  supplementary  legislation  after  the  restoration  of  peace.2 
With  the  Irish  problem  as  the  principal  bone  of  contention,  the 
years  1913-14  were  filled  with  bitterer  party  strife  than  England 
had  known  in  a  hundred  years,  if  not  indeed  in  her  entire  history. 

Externally,  at  all  events,  the  status  of  the  parties  underwent 
no  notable  change.  The  summer  and  autumn  of  [912  saw  vig- 
orous campaigning  by  the  Unionists,  who  felt  that  the  Asquith 
government  was  losing  its  hold  and  predicted  that  the  Welsh 
Disestablishment  and  Home  Rule  proposals  would  mean  an  early 
Liberal  downfall.  At  thirty-eight  by-elections  contested  by  the 
Unionists  since  December,  igio,  the  Liberals  had  indeed  suffered 
a  net  loss  of  eight  seats;  and  one  of  the  contests  lost  was  in  Midlo- 
thian, the  constituency  long  represented  by  Gladstone,  which  in 
September,  1912,  returned  a  Unionisl  member  for  the  first  time 
in  thirty-eight  years.  There  is  a  tradition  that  when  a  Liberal 
1  See  p.  128.  2Seep.  294. 


POLITICAL  PARTIES    SINCE    1800  259 

government  is  defeated  in  Midlothian  the  end  of  that  government 
is  not  far  distant.  The  Unionists  were  handicapped  by  their 
differences  on  the  question  of  tariffs  on  foodstuffs,  and  the 
Government  pressed  on  relentlessly  and  fearlessly  with  its  con- 
troversial measures.  When  challenged  by  the  Unionists  to  sub- 
mit the  Irish  question  to  the  people  at  a  general  election,  or  at 
least  to  hold  a  referendum  on  the  subject,  Mr.  Asquith  and  his 
colleagues  replied  that  the  electorate  had  already  been  duly 
consulted;  and  the  unopposed  return  of  the  premier  to  Parlia- 
ment by  his  constituency  in  the  election  to  which  he  was  required, 
early  in  1914,  to  submit  upon  his  acceptance  of  the  war  secre- 
taryship, was  urged  by  the  Liberals  as  an  indication  that  the 
Government  retained  unimpaired  the  confidence  of  the  majori- 
ties that  had  continued  it  in  power  in  1910.  Half  a  dozen 
defeats  in  by-elections  in  the  winter  of  1913-14,  combined  with  a 
series  of  reverses  in  borough  elections,  pointed,  however,  to  a 
different  conclusion ;  and  the  premier  himself  felt  it  necessary, 
in  the  spring  of  1914,  to  make  a  special  appeal  to  the  Labor 
forces  for  closer  cooperation.  When  the  Great  War  came  on, 
the  country  was  within  fifteen  months  of  a  general  election, 
entailed  by  the  five-year  limit  placed  upon  the  life  of  a  parlia- 
ment by  the  Parliament  Act ;  and  the  indications  were  that  the 
Unionists  would  be  in  a  position  to  enter  the  contest  with  a  very 
fair  prospect  of  winning.1 

1  The  political  history  of  the  period  is  recorded  with  some  fullness  in  the  Annual 
Register  for  the  successive  years.  See  also  the  summaries  of  parliamentary  proceed- 
ings in  the  Polit.  Quar.,  Feb.,  May,  and  Sept.,  1914. 


CHAPTER    XV 

THE   MAJOR  PARTIES:    COMPOSITION   AND   ORGANIZATION 

Liberal  and  Conservative  [Unionist]  Alignments.  Having 
outlined  the  party  history  of  the  past  hundred  years,  we  are  pre- 
pared to  look  somewhat  more  closely  into  the  character  of  the 
parties  themselves,  as  indicated  by  their  composition,  their  or- 
ganization and  methods,  and  their  principles  and  policies;  and 
inasmuch  as  the  Great  War  forced  all  party  organizations  com- 
pletely out  of  their  accustomed  positions,  it  will  be  desirable  to 
deal  with  these  varied  aspects  of  party  affairs  as  they  stood  in 
1014.  and  afterwards  to  speak  separately  of  developments  in  the 
party  situation  during  and  since  the  conflict.  The  parties  as 
they  were  on  the  eve  of  the  war  will  therefore  be  described  in 
this  chapter  and  the  two  succeeding  chapters;  party  movements 
since  1914  will  be  briefly  dealt  with  in  the  concluding  chapter  of 
the  series  on  this  subject. 
Of  the  four  parties  that  had  attained  substantial  importance  by 
1914,  one,  the  Irish  Nationalist,  was  localized  in  Ireland  and  had 
for  its  sole  purpose  the  achievement  of  Irish  home  rule  ;  another. 
the  Labor  party,  was  composed  principally  of  workingmen 
(mainly  members  of  trade  unions)  and  existed  to  promote  the 
interests  of  the  laboring  masses ;  while  the  two  older  and  more 
powerful  ones,  the  Liberals  and  the  Conservatives  or  Unionists, 
were  broadly  national  both  in  their  constituencies  and  in  the 
range  of  their  principles  and  policies.  It  had  been  customary 
for  these  two  major  parties  to  engage  in  heated  combat  in  Parlia- 
ment and  at  the  polls,  and  the  casual  spectator  might  suppose 
that  they  were  separated  by  a  very  wide  gulf.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  there  was  no  difference  between  them  that  need  prevent  a 
flexible-minded  man  from  crossing  from  one  to  the  other.  Even 
the  names  "  Liberal  "  and  "  Conservative  "  had,  and  still  have, 
less  significance  than  might  be  supposed.  During  the  generation 
which  began  with  the  Reform  Act  of  [832  the  Liberals,  indeed, 
extended  the  suffrage  to  the  middle  classes,  reformed  the 
poor  law,  humanized  the  criminal  law,  introduced  a  new  and 
improved  scheme  of  municipa  I  administration,  started  public  pro- 
vision for  elementary  education,  enacted  statutes  to  safeguard  the 

260 


THE  MAJOR  PARTIES  261 

public  health,  removed  the  disabilities  of  dissenters,  and  helped 
the  country  get  definitely  on  a  free-trade  basis.  In  general,  they 
labored  to  bring  the  political  system  into  accord  with  the  new 
conditions  produced  by  the  industrial  revolution  and  by  the 
growth  of  democratic  ideas.  But  if  the  Conservatives  of  the 
period  1830-70  lived  fairly  well  up  to  their  party  name,  their 
attitude,  none  the  less,  was  by  no  means  uniformly  that  of  ob- 
structionists ;  and  in  the  days  of  the  Disraelian  leadership  they 
became  scarcely  less  a  party  of  reform  than  were  their  opponents. 
Beginning  with  the  Reform  Act  of  1867,  a  long  list  of  progressive, 
and  even  revolutionizing,  measures  must  be  credited  to  them ; 
and  in  later  years  they  and  the  Liberals  vied  in  advocating  old 
age  pensions,  factory  legislation,  Irish  land  reform,  accident 
insurance,  housing  laws,  and  many  other  kinds  of  advanced  and 
remedial  governmental  action. 

The  differences  which  have  separated  the  two  parties  are  not 
so  much  those  of  principle  as  those  of  means  or,  at  the  most,  of 
tendencies.  It  has  been  a  favorite  contention  of  the  Liberals 
that  they  are  the  more  democratic,  the  more  willing  to  trust 
the  people,  the  more  devoted  to  the  interests  of  the  masses  — 
that  they  seek  the  well-being  of  the  working  classes  from  convic- 
tion, while  their  opponents  do  so  only  from  a  desire  for  votes ; 
but  the  Unionists  enter  a  strong,  and  to  a  degree  plausible,  denial. 
It  used  to  be  a  theory  of  the  Liberals,  too,  that  they  fostered  peace 
and  economy  with  more  resoluteness  than  their  rivals,  and  that 
the  Unionists  stood  for  a  more  aggressive,  and  even  menacing, 
attitude  abroad.  There  is  some  historical  ground  for  these  as- 
sertions. Yet  the  policy  pursued  in  these  matters  is  likely  to  be 
determined,  year  in  and  year  out,  far  more  by  the  circumstances 
that  arise  and  by  the  temperament  of  individual  ministers  than 
by  any  deliberate  or  permanent  principle  of  party.  Undoubtedly 
the  Liberals  have  had  more  regard  for  the  peculiar  interests  of 
Scotland,  Wales,  and  especially  Ireland ;  yet  even  here  the  dif- 
ference is  not  as  great  as  is  often  supposed. 

All  in  all,  it  would  appear  that  the  population  of  the  United 
Kingdom,  barring  the  Nationalist  and  Labor  elements,  was  in 
1 914  about  evenly  divided  between  the  Liberal  and  Conservative 
forces.  Party  composition,  however,  followed  the  lines  of  class 
or  interest  far  more  than  in  the  United  States  ;  although  all  kinds 
of  contradictory  affiliations  appeared,  and  it  was  never  safe  to 
assume  that  a  man  was  of  a  given  party  connection  simply  be- 
cause he  belonged  to  a  certain  profession,  class,  or  group.  In  the 
Conservative  ranks,  however,  were  found  decidedly  the  larger  part 


262  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EURO  IT. 

Of  the  people  of  title,  wealth,  and  social  position;  almost  all  of 
the  clergy  of  the  Established  Church,  and  some  of  the  Dis- 
sentex  ially  Wesleyans ;  a  majority  of  the  graduates  of  the 

universities1  and  of  members  of  the  bar;  most  of  the  prosperous 
merchants,  manufacturers,  and  financiers;  a  majority  of  clerks, 
and  approximately  half  of  the  tradesmen  and  shopkeepers; 
and  a  very  considerable,  although  diminishing,  number  of  work- 
ing-people. The  Liberal  party  contained  a  minor  share  of  the 
professional  and  commercial  classes,  about  half  of  the  middle 
class  (omitting  clerks  and  other  employees  living  on  small  fixed 
incomes),  and  at  least  half  of  the  workingmen,  although  the  Labor 
party  was  drawing  off  increasing  numbers  of  the  last-mentioned 
class.  The  Established  Church  in  England  and  Wales  was  a 
bulwark  of  Unionism,  but  the  Nonconformists  were  everywhere 
heavily  Liberal. 

Liberalism  (in  the  party  sense)  drew  the  support  of  only  an 
insignificant  portion  of  the  rank  and  wealth  of  the  kingdom. 
At  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  party  indeed  con- 
sisted fundamentally  of  two  elements:  (i)  the  aristocratic 
Whigs,  of  eighteenth-century  antecedents,  whose  liberalism  was 
of  a  very  moderate  sort,  and  (2)  middle-class  people  enfranchised 
in  1832,  who  were  more  inclined  to  radicalism.  The  reform  acts 
of  1867  and  1884  brought  this  second  clement  great  accessions  of 
strength,  and  by  drawing  in  the  working  people  of  the  towns  ac- 
centuated its  radical  propensities.  The  old-Whig  and  the  more 
popular  elements  were,  however,  never  really  fused,  and,  beginning 
with  the  secession  of  the  Liberal  Unionists  on  Gladstone's  first 
Home  Rule  Bill  in  1886,  the  elements  representing  title,  wealth, 
and  fashion  migrated  almost  en  masse  into  the  ranks  of  the 
opposing  party.  This  drew  off  most  of  the  old  Whigs.  In  addi- 
tion, many  of  the  great  manufacturers  and  traders,  representing 
new  and  socially  ambitious  families,  chose  to  link  up  their  for- 
tunes with  conservatism.  The  immediate  result  was  a  decided 
weakening  of  the  party,  which  was  revealed  no  less  by  its  failure 
to  govern  impressively  in  1892-95  than  by  its  low  estate  as  an 
opposition  party  in  1 895-1 905.  In  the  long  run,  however,  there 
was  a  distinct  gain  in  unity,  and  the  party  was  able  to  become  a 
party  of  liberalism  in  a  degree  that  must  otherwise  have  been 
impossible.2 

1  At  the  election  of  iqo6,  21,505  of  the  25.771  votes  recorded  in  the  university 
1  onstituencies  were  cast  for  Unionist  candidates.  From  1885  to  1918  not  a  Liberal 
member  was  returned  by  any  one  of  the  univi  fsities. 

-  This  Liberal  secession  is  fully  described  and  interpreted  in  Ostrogorski,  Democ- 
racy and  the  Organization  of  Political  Parties,  I,  Chap.  ix.     See  also  Morley,  Life 


THE  MAJOR  PARTIES  263 

Geographical  Distribution  of  Party  Strength.  —  The  strength 
of  Irish  Nationalism  up  to  1 914  lay  almost  wholly  in  Ireland,  and 
that  of  the  Labor  party  was  largely  confined  to  the  great  indus- 
trial centers  and  districts  of  England  and  Wales.  The  major 
parties,  too,  while  less  localized,  were  decidedly  stronger  in  some 
portions  of  the  country  than  in  others.  Scotland  was  over- 
whelmingly Liberal.  Half  of  its  counties  and  boroughs  invariably 
returned  Liberals  to  the  House  of  Commons ;  a  third  more  were 
predominantly  Liberal;  three  or  four  counties  were  politically 
doubtful ;  not  more  than  that  number  were  predominantly  Con- 
servative. The  situation  in  Wales  was  practically  the  same,  ex- 
cept that  the  Liberal  dominance  was  still  more  pronounced.  On 
the  other  hand,  England  presented  the  aspect  of  a  predominantly 
Conservative,  or  at  all  events  Conservative  and  doubtful,  stretch 
of  country,  generously  spotted  over  with  Liberal  areas.  Five 
of  these  Liberal  regions  stood  out  with  some  distinctness:  (1) 
the  extreme  northeast,  especially  Northumberland,  Durham,  and 
parts  of  Cumberland;  (2)  a  great  belt  stretching  westwards 
from  the  Humber  to  Morecambe  Bay,  and  including  northern 
Lincoln,  southern  York,  and  northern  Lancashire ;  (3)  Norfolk 
and  the  other  lands  bordering  the  Wash ;  (4)  a  midlands  area 
containing  parts  of  Leicester,  Warwick,  Northampton,  and  Bed- 
ford ;  and  (5)  Devon  and  Cornwall,  in  the  far  southwest.  The 
Conservative  strongholds  lay  farther  to  the  south  and  east. 
From  Chester  and  Nottingham  to  the  English  Channel,  and 
from  Wales  to  the  North  Sea  —  this  was  the  great  area  in  which 
almost  all  of  the  notable  strength  of  Conservatism  was  to  be  found, 
aside  from  the  four  or  five  Protestant  counties  of  the  Irish 
province  of  Ulster.  From  Oxford  and  Hertford  southwards  past 
London  to  the  Channel  there  was  not  a  county  that  was  not 
predominantly  Conservative.  Perhaps  the  most  strongly  Con- 
servative section  of  the  entire  country  was  the  southeasternmost 
county,  Kent.1 

The  existence  of  "  two  Britains,"  a  northern  and  a  southern, 
a  Liberal  and  a  Conservative,  has  long  been  a  matter  of  comment 
among  students  of  politics  and  of  sociology;   Disraeli  gave  it 

of  William  Ewart  Gladstone,  III,  Bk.  x ;  Churchill,  Lord  Randolph  Churchill,  II, 
Chaps,  xii-xiii  ;  Jeyes,  Mr.  Chamberlain,  Chaps,  ix-x  ;  Mackintosh,  Joseph 
Chamberlain,  Chaps,  xvi-xx. 

1  See  E.  Krehbiel,  "Geographic  Influences  in  British  Elections,"  in  Geog.  Rev., 
Dec,  1916.  A  map  which  accompanies  this  article  shows  in  colors  the  distribution 
of  party  strength  on  the  basis  of  composite  returns  for  the  eight  parliamentary 
elections  between  1885  and  December,  1910.  A  book  of  some  interest  in  this 
connection  is  R.  H.  Gretton,  The  English  Middle  Class  (London,  1917)- 


264  GOVERNMEN  rS  01     EUROPE 

literary  recognition  in  his  novel  Sybil.  Leaving  Wales  out  of 
account,  the  division  line  may  be  indicated  roughly  as  the  Trent 
River.  North  of  the  Trent,  temperament,  attitude,  outlook 
are,  and  have  been  in  the  past  hundred  years,  predominantly 
Liberal;  south  of  the  Trent,  they  have  been  predominantly 
Conservative.  "  The  panics  and  perils  of  the  Napoleonic  wars," 
.-ays  an  English  writer,  "  had  the  sad  result  of  driving  out  of  the 
southern  shires,  where  they  once  ran  deep  and  strong,  the  tradi- 
tions of  Milton  and  Bunyan,  of  Pym  and  Hampden,  each  a 
southerner,  and  each  a  fearless  apostle  of  liberty  and  democracy. 
Since  1800  the  impulse  to  liberality  of  thought  and  action  in 
politics  has  consistently  come  from  the  north  and  won  its  way 
against  the  steady  resistance  of  the  south.  From  the  north  came 
Wilberforce  to  banish  slavery;  from  the  north  came  Grey, 
Durham,  Brougham,  and  the  Edinburgh  Review  to  give  Britain 
parliamentary  reform  in  1832  ;  from  the  north  came  Cobden  and 
Bright  to  give  her  economic  freedom  and  a  true  perspective  of  the 
American  Civil  War ;  from  the  north  came  Gladstone  and  his 
great  Liberal  majorities  of  1868  and  1880;  and  in  the  northern 
by-elections  after  1902  began  the  stern  revolt  of  outraged  de- 
mocracy against  the  jingo  imperialism  of  the  Boer  War  period, 
which  ended  in  Campbell-Banncrman's  crushing  victory  of  1906. 
All  progressive  causes  and  Liberal  administrations  in  Britain 
for  the  last  century  have  drawn  their  electoral  support  and  moral 
inspiration  from  the  north,  just  as  Tory  imperialism  and  reaction 
have  had  their  strong  house  of  refuge  in  the  south."  l 

This  statement  conveys  a  somewhat  exaggerated  impression ; 
the  south  has  been  less  uniformly  reactionary  than  is  here  affirmed 
and  (as  has  been  emphasized  above),  whatever  the  differences 
between  Liberalism  and  Conservatism  in  earlier  generations,  Con- 
servatives have  in  later  decades  repeatedly  proved  themselves 
hardly  less  openminded  and  progressive  than  their  rivals.  Still, 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  north  and  south  have  been,  and  are, 
fundamentally  unlike  in  political  temper  and  attitude.  There 
are  several  reasons  why  they  should  be  so.  The  first  is  the  pre- 
dominantly industrial  character  of  the  north  as  compared  with 
the  south.  It  was,  indeed,  the  industrial  revolution  that  first 
created  the  two  Britains  --  the  one  devoted  to  manufacturing 
and  mining,  largely  urban,  meeting  new  problems,  requiring  novel 
legislation  and  drastic  reforms,  the  other  mainly  landholding 
and  agricultural,  rural  rather  than  urban,  bound  by  immemorial 
custom,  and  hence  by  nature  conservative.     Trade  unionism, 

1  " Hespericus,"  in  N.  Y.  Nation,  Aug.  17,  iyio,  p.  166. 


THE   MAJOR   PARTIES  265 

the  political  activities  of  labor,  the  impulse  toward  higher  stand- 
ards of  education  created  by  the  technical  demands  of  industry  — 
these  and  other  forces  have  counted  powerfully  for  Liberalism 
in  the  north.1  On  the  other  hand,  the  south  has  always  been  the 
chief  seat  of  the  great  military  and  naval  organizations,  with 
their  preconceptions  of  caste  and  their  lack  of  touch  with  demo- 
cratic influences.  Furthermore,  in  the  south  dwell  practically 
all  of  the  very  large  number  of  retired  and  returned  planters, 
merchant::,  sportsmen,  concession-holders,  and  other  magnates 
from  the  various  parts  of  the  overseas  Empire  —  the  successors 
of  the  Indian  "  nabobs  "  of  a  century  ago,  and,  like  them,  too 
long  accustomed  to  lording  it  over  the  undeveloped  folk  of  the 
tropics  to  be  likely  to  incline  very  strongly  toward  democracy  at 
home.  Finally  may  be  mentioned  the  influence  of  the  institu- 
tions of  learning  —  not  only  the  ancient  universities  but  the  great 
schools  like  Eton  and  Harrow  —  whose  atmosphere,  if  not  actual 
teaching,  is  strongly  conservative.  Three  fourths  of  these  in- 
stitutions are  south  of  the  Trent. 

In  general,  those  regions  in  which  the  people  are  engaged  mainly 
in  manufacturing  and  mining  have  been  Liberal,  those  in  which 
they  are  engaged  in  agriculture  have  been  Conservative ;  and 
among  agricultural  districts,  it  is  the  most  fertile  and  best  favored, 
such  as  Kent,  that  have  been  most  decidedly  Conservative. 
Regions  in  which  small  landholders  abound  are  likely  to  be  Lib- 
eral. Scotland  is  Liberal  because  of  the  hostility  to  landlordism, 
the  exceptionally  high  state  of  education,  the  strong  sense  of 
independence  and  the  sturdy  democracy  of  the  middle  and  work- 
ing classes,  and  the  weakness  of  the  peerage  in  both  numbers  and 
influence.  Wales  is  Liberal  because  of  the  preponderance  of 
industry  and  mining,  the  scarcity  of  great  landed  estates,  the 
radical  temperament  bred  by  an  austere  mode  of  life,  and  the 
strength  of  Nonconformism.2 

1  It  is  true  that  certain  great  northern  cities  —  Liverpool,  Birmingham,  Manches- 
ter —  have  usually  returned  more  Conservatives  than  Liberals  to  the  House  of 
Commons.  But  in  most  instances  an  explanation  can  be  found  in  certain  artificial 
factors  that  reverse  the  natural  tendencies.  Thus,  Liverpool  goes  Conservative 
for  the  reason  that  the  Conservatives,  once  in  control  of  the  municipal  council, 
met  the  demands  of  the  industrial  population  by  surprisingly  radical  legislation  and 
thereby  won,  and  kept,  the  support  of  the  masses,  in  national  as  well  as  local  politics. 
Birmingham's  leanings  to  Conservatism  are  traceable  to  the  influence  of  the  city's 
most  eminent  statesman,  Joseph  Chamberlain.  Manchester  was  formerly  Conserva- 
tive, but  swung  into  the  Liberal  column  in  1906  as  a  protest  against  "tariff 
reform." 

2  For  an  excellent  discussion  of  the  cognate  subjects  of  the  strength  of  party 
ties  and  political  oscillations  see  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II,  Chaps,  xxxv- 
xxxvi. 


2C6  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

Party  Organization  in  Parliament.  In  view  of  the  long- 
continued  growth  of  English  parties,  and  of  their  general  impor- 
tance in  the  political  system,  one  will  doI  be  surprised  to  find  that 
they  have  developed  elaborate  machinery  for  holding  their  mem- 
bership together,  formulating  principles  and  policies,  selecting 
candidates  for  office,  and  winning  the  electorate  to  their  side 
whenever  there  is  to  be  a  contest  at  the  polls.  Continuous  and 
compact  organization  is  essential  for  party  life  and  power  every- 
where. But  it  is  especially  necessary  in  a  cabinet-governed  state, 
because  there  an  election  may  be  brought  on  at  any  time  and  by 
the  most  unexpected  turn  of  events.  There  are  no  fixed  "  off 
years,"  in  which  a  party  can  relax,  as  an  American  party  can. 
Rather,  every  party  must  stand  at  all  times  equipped  for  instant 
combat.  Nowhere  is  this  more  true  than  in  Great  Britain  ; 
and  it  may  be  added  that,  more  than  any  other  important  people 
—  in  normal  times,  at  all  events  —  the  British  live  in  a  state  of 
perpetual  political  discussion  and  tension. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  party  system  and  the  cabinet 
system  arose  simultaneously  and  in  the  closest  possible  relations. 
The  earliest  party  organization  was  the  cabinet,  which,  indeed, 
remains  to  this  day  the  highest  party  authority.  The  cabinet 
is,  for  all  practical  purposes,  the  party  government,  and  as 
such  it  can  brook  no  control  by  an  outside  organization.  The 
party  out  of  power  has,  it  is  true,  no  cabinet.  But  it  has  a  group 
of  recognized  leaders  who,  if  it  were  to  come  into  power,  would 
compose  the  cabinet ;  and  for  purposes  of  party  management 
these  men  discharge  substantially  the  same  functions  as  if  they 
were  in  ministerial  office.  Within  the  two  houses,  the  Govern- 
ment and  Opposition  leaders  supply  all  the  party  machinery  that 
is  needed  except  a  small  group  of  "  whips  "  whose  business  it  is, 
chiefly,  to  see  that  the  party  members  are  in  their  places  when 
important  votes  are  to  be  taken.  The  Government  whips,  usually 
four  in  number,  are  reckoned  as  ministers  and  are  paid  out  of 
the  public  treasury,  on  the  theory  that  it  is  their  function  to  in- 
sure the  presence  of  a  quorum  so  that  the  appropriations  can  be 
voted.1  The  Opposition  whips,  commonly  three  in  number, 
are  of  course  private  members,  named  by  the  leaders,  and  un- 
salaried. 

The  whips  work  under  the  general  direction  of  the  party  leaders ; 

indeed,  the  major  fact  about  party  organization  in  Parliament  is 

1  The  chief  Government  whip  hold-  the  office  of  Parliamentary  Secretary  to  the 
ury,  and  the  other  three  are  Junior  Lords  of  the  Treasury.     Cf,  p.  75-     On 
the  origins  of  the  whips  see  Ostrogorski,  Democracy  and  the  Organization  of  Political 
Parties,  I,  137-140. 


THE   MAJOR   PARTIES  267 

the  absolute  authority  of  these  leaders.  In  the  case  of  the  lesser 
groups,  all  of  the  party  members  in  the  houses  are  occasionally 
convened  in  a  caucus  for  deliberation  on  questions  of  policy.  But 
in  the  larger  parties  this  practice  is  quite  unknown.  General 
meetings  are,  indeed,  sometimes  called  at  one  of  the  political 
clubs.  But  they  are  designed  to  give  the  leaders  an  opportunity 
to  address  and  instruct  their  followers,  and  not  at  all  as  occasions 
for  a  free  and  general  interchange  of  opinion.  The  only  excep- 
tion to  this  rule  arises  when  the  formal  chief  of  the  party  is  to  be 
selected ;  and  even  then  —  although  general  discussion  takes 
place  —  the  decision  is  likely  to  be  controlled  by  a  handful  of 
the  principal  members.  The  party  organization  in  Parliament  is 
quite  complete  within  itself;  except  through  such  evidences  of 
support  as  are  given  at  the  polls,  the  party  at  large  does  not  choose 
its  leaders  at  all,  —  not  even  the  chief  who  will  preside  over  the 
government  while  it  is  in  power.1 

An  important  intermediary  between  the  party  organizations  in 
Parliament  and  the  nation-wide  party  organizations  presently  to 
be  described  is  the  peculiar  institution  known  as  the  Central 
Office.  Both  Liberals  and  Conservatives  have  a  Central  Office. 
The  Liberal  Central  Office  carries  on  its  work  nominally  as  the 
agent  of  the  Central  Liberal  Association,  a  voluntary  body  of 
several  hundred  subscribers  to  the  party  funds,  although  in  fact 
it  is  directed  by  an  executive  committee  chosen  by  the  party 
whips.  The  Conservatives  have  no  Central  Association,  and 
the  work  of  the  Central  Office  is  directed,  both  nominally  and 
actually,  by  three  chief  party  figures,  i.e.,  the  leader,  the  chief 
whip,  and  the  principal  party  agent.  In  both  cases,  the  Central 
Office  is  essentially  an  extension  of  the  whip's  office,  and  the  work 
is  carried  on  by  the  principal  agent  and  his  assistants.  The 
more  opulent  Conservative  Central  Office  has  paid  agents  in  the 
provinces ;  the  Liberal  Office  is  obliged  to  work  through  other 
sorts  of  intermediaries,  mainly  the  local  party  associations.  In 
either  case,  the  work  performed  is  of  a  varied  nature,  although 
all  of  it  relates,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  the  winning  of  elections. 
Literature  is  prepared  and  circulated ;  money  is  raised  and  dis- 
tributed ;  the  constituencies  are  aided,  on  their  own  request,  in 
the  search  for  candidates.  The  Central  Office  is  linked  up  very 
closely  with  the  party  organization  in  Parliament,  and  it  is  to 
this  Office,  rather  than  to  the  great  party  organizations  outside, 
that  the  parliamentary  party  leaders  look  for  such  action  as  they 
desire  to  have  taken  in  the  interest  of  the  party.  None  the  less, 
1  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,  Chap.  xxv. 


268  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

expediency  requires  that  these  central  agencies  shall  not  work  at 
purposes  with  the  nation-wide  organizations  (the  National 
Liberal  Federation  and  the  Conservative  National  Union),1 
and  effort  is  made  to  preserve  agreeable,  if  not  close,  reciprocal 
relations.  Each  party  houses  its  Central  Office  and  the  head- 
quarters of  its  popular  organization  in  the  same  building  in  Parlia- 
ment Street,  and  as  a  rule  the  secretary  of  one  organization  is 
made  honorary  secretary  of  the  other. 

Local  Party  Organizations.  —  Outside  of  Parliament,  party 
organization  was  slow  to  develop.  Local  party  associations  UrA 
came  into  the  field  only  after  the  reform  act  of  1832;  the  ear- 
liestnation-wideparty organization  was  founded  hardly  more  than 
fifty  years  ago.2  A  moment's  thought  will  suffice  to  make  clear 
why  this  should  have  been  so.  Prior  to  1832,  the  electorate  was 
small  and  scattered.  The  seats  belonging  to  rotten  boroughs 
were  sold  for  cash  ;  those  belonging  to  "  pocket  boroughs  " 
were  filled  at  the  dictation  of  some  magnate,  with  or  without  the 
form  of  an  election ;  in  most  of  the  constituencies  which  really 
elected  members  the  suffrage  was  confined  to  a  mere  handful  of 
the  inhabitants ;  only  here  and  there  —  as  in  Westminster  - 
was  the  electorate  large  enough  to  form  the  basis  for  local  party 
organization.3  The  reform  act  of  1832  altered  this  situation 
by  creating  half  a  million  new  electors  and  by  rearranging  the 
constituencies  in  such  a  way  as  to  throw  the  choice  of  representa- 
tives in  practically  all  cases  into  the  hands  of  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  people.  This  at  once  raised  the  problem  of  organizing 
the  voters  with  a  view  to  accomplishing  the  results  hitherto 
obtained  by  individual  initiative  or  by  informal  conference  of 
the  few  persons  concerned;  and  the  need  of  party  organization 
steadily  grew  as  the  electorate  expanded  later  in  the  century, 
notably  under  the  terms  of  the  acts  of  1867  and  1884. 

The  earliest  local  party  organizations  were  self-constituted 
registration  societies,  whose  primary  object  was  to  get  the  new, 
inexperienced,  and  frequently  apathetic  voters  on  the  parlia- 
mentary register  and  keep  them  there,  in  so  far  as  these  voters 
were  prepared  to  support  the  party ;  although  it  must  be  added 
that  the  object  was  to  keep  them  off  the  lists  in  so  far  as  they  were 
not  thus  disposed.  Such  societies  appeared  in  both  parties  al- 
most immediately  after  the  legislation  of  1832,  and  by  1840  they 

1  See  pp.  271-275. 

2  Political,  but  not  strictly  party,  associations  of  various  kinds  existed  much 
earlier.     See  Ostrogorski,  Democracy  and  the  Organization  of  Political  Parlies,  I, 

«  7-134. 

3  See  pp.  1 1 5-1 17. 


THE   MAJOR  PARTIES  269 

became  common  throughout  the  country.  Presently,  too, 
their  activities  were  broadened  to  include  canvassing  the  voters 
in  their  homes,  supplying  them  with  information  about  the  can- 
didates, persuading  the  hesitant,  and  getting  the  loyal  to  the 
polls.1  A  new  stage  was  reached  in  1867.  The  reform  act  of 
that  year  gave  certain  of  the  great  northern  towns  three  members 
of  Parliament  apiece,  but  with  a  view  to  minority  representation, 
specified  that  each  elector  should  vote  for  only  two  candidates. 
Radical-minded  Birmingham  Liberals  did  not  think  well  of  the 
plan,  and  their  local  association  worked  out  a  scheme  for  the  mar- 
shaling of  the  Liberal  voters  of  their  borough  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  enable  them,  by  a  carefully  calculated  distribution  of  votes, 
to  capture  the  entire  number  of  seats. 

The  main  point  to  the  reorganization  was  the  conversion  of  the 
self-constituted  Liberal  association  into  a  party  "  caucus  " 
consisting  of  all  dues-paying  Liberal  voters  in  the  borough,  with 
elected  officers,  a  representative  executive  committee,  and  a  large 
general  committee  to  control  the  organization's  policy  and  to 
nominate  Liberal  candidates  for  the  three  seats  to  which  the  bor- 
ough was  entitled.  The  caucus  proved  its  worth  in  the  elec- 
tions of  1868  and  became  an  established  feature  of  Birmingham 
politics ;  under  the  leadership  of  Joseph  Chamberlain  it  was 
still  further  democratized  in  1873-77.  The  principles  upon  which 
it  was  based  became  the  subject  of  widespread  discussion  and  of 
much  difference  of  opinion.  But,  in  general,  the  idea  commended 
itself,  and  by  1879  the  Liberals  were  organized  in  a  similar  way 
in  about  one  hundred  places.  The  establishment  of  the  National 
Liberal  Federation  in  1877  gave  the  movement  a  powerful 
impetus,  because  this  organization  (to  be  described  presently) 
has  consisted  from  the  first  of  democratic  local  societies  on  the 
model  of  the  Birmingham  caucus.  In  ten  years  the  number  of 
societies  affiliated  with  the  Federation  rose  to  seven  hundred 
and  sixteen.2 

Organization  of  Liberals  on  these  lines  went  on  more  rapidly 
in  the  towns  than  in  the  counties,  because  townspeople  are  easier 
to  organize,  and  because  the  Liberal  forces  were  predominantly 

1  Party  organizations  prior  to  the  rise  of  the  caucus  are  fully  described  in  Ostro- 
gorski,  op.  cit.,  I, 135-160,  and  the  effects  of  the  reform  act  of  1832  on  part}' activities 
are  described  in  Seymour,  Electoral  Reform  in  England  and  Wales,  Chap.  iv. 

2  The  rise  of  the  caucus  is  clearly  described  in  Ostrogorski,  "The  Introduction 
of  the  Caucus  into  England,"  in  Polit.  Set.  Quar.,  June,  1893.  A  much  fuller  ac- 
count is  the  same  author's  Democracy  and  the  Organization  of  Political  Parties, 
I,  161-249.  The  salient  features  are  clearly  presented  in  Lowell,  Government  of 
England,  I,  469-478. 


270  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

urban.  But  by  the  opening  of  the  present  century  there  was  a 
Libera]  association  (this  term  is  more  commonly  employed  than 
caucus)  in  practically  every  constituency,  rural  and  urban,  in 
which  the  party  was  not  in  a  hopeless  minority.  In  a  pamphlet 
entitled  "Notes  and  Hints  for  the  Guidance  of  Liberals,"  the 
Federation  maps  out  a  desirable  form  of  organization  for  these 
societies.  But,  aside  from  requiring  thai  their  government  shall  be 
based  upon  popular  representation,  it  lays  down  no  positive  regu- 
lations;  and  it  is  especially  to  be  observed  that  the  state  seeks 
to  regulate  in  no  way  whatever  either  these  local  associations 
or  any  other  party  organizations.  Naturally,  there  is  a  certain 
amount  of  variation.  Yet,  in  general,  every  rural  parish  has  a 
primary  association;  every  small  town  has  a  similar  association, 
with  an  elected  executive  committee;  every  parliamentary  di- 
vision of  a  county  has  a  council  and  an  executive  committee ; 
every  parliamentary  borough  is  organized  by  wards  and  has 
officers  and  committees  on  the  plan  of  the  Birmingham  caucus. 
In  local  organization  the  Conservatives  were  hardly  behind 
their  rivals,  and  in  the  formation  of  a  nation-wide  league  of 
local  societies  they  led  by  a  full  decade.  Local  Conservative 
associations  were  created  in  largest  numbers  in  the  years  follow- 
ing the  reform  act  of  1867,  and  by  1874,  when  the  party  secured 
its  first  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons  since  1841,  England 
and  Wales  contained  approximately  four  hundred  and  fifty.  In 
the  next  two  years  the  number  was  almost  doubled.  The  effec- 
tiveness of  the  Birmingham  caucus,  and  of  the  Liberal  machinery 
generally,  was  not  lost  upon  the  Conservative  organizers.  Be- 
sides, many  of  the  local  organizations  were  composed  mainly  or 
entirely  of  workingmen.  Hence,  the  representative  principle 
was  gradually  given  fuller  play,  and  the  agencies  of  local  party 
control  became  no  less  democratic  than  those  employed  by  the 
Liberals.  It  is  not  necessary  to  describe  the  machinery  in  detail. 
As  in  the  case  of  the  Liberals,  the  authorities  of  the  Federation 
recommend  certain  forms  of  organization,  embracing  mass  meet- 
ings, committees,  councils,  and  officials  in  such  combinations  as 
seem  most  likely  to  meet  the  needs  of  parishes,  wards,  county 
divisions,  boroughs,  and  other  political  areas;  and,  in  the  main, 
these  recommendations  are  observed.  The  Conservatives  have 
had  more  money  to  spend  on  local  organization  than  have  the 
Liberals,  and  they  have  covered  the  country  rather  more  effec- 
tively. Both  parties,  however,  have  had  more  success  in  organiz- 
ing their  adherents  in  the  boroughs  than  in  the  rural  sections.1 
1  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,  Chaps,  xxvii-xxviii. 


THE  MAJOR  PARTIES  271 

The  Conservative  National  Union.  —  It  was  inevitable  that 
after  a  large  number  of  local  associations  had  come  into  the  field 
to  promote  the  interests  of  a  given  party  they  should  be  brought 
together  in  some  form  of  a  league  or  union.  As  has  been  stated, 
the  Conservatives  here  led  the  way ;  and  the  main  impulse  was 
supplied  by  the  feverish  efforts  of  both  parties  to  capture  and 
organize  the  newly  enfranchised  townsmen  of  1867.  The  National 
Union  of  Conservative  and  Constitutional  Associations  was 
established  at  a  conference  held  in  November,  1867.  The  con- 
stitution provided  for  a  purely  federal  organization  ;  the  members 
were  to  be  associations,  not  individuals.  Any  Conservative  or 
Constitutional  association  might  be  admitted  on  payment  of 
one  guinea  a  year,  and  machinery  of  government  was  set  up  con- 
sisting of  (1)  a  Conference,  composed  (in  addition  to  the  officers 
of  the  Union)  of  delegates  elected  by  the  several  member  associa- 
tions, two  from  each,  (2)  a  Council,  consisting  of  the  officers  of 
the  Union,  twenty-four  persons  elected  by  the  Conference,  and 
not  more  than  twenty  others  chosen  by  the  principal  provincial 
associations,  with  provision  for  a  few  honorary  members,  and 
(3)  a  president,  a  treasurer,  and  a  board  of  trustees,  elected  by 
the  Conference. 

The  new  organization  was  slow  to  get  on  its  feet ;  in  ten  years, 
fewer  than  one  third  of  the  local  associations  joined.  However, 
it  gradually  proved  its  usefulness  as  a  clearing-house  of  Conserva- 
tive ideas  and  methods;  and  after  a  reorganization  in  1885-86 
which  broadened  its  basis  and  strengthened  its  machinery  it  won 
the  general  support  of  the  party.  By  1888  the  number  of 
affiliated  associations  exceeded  eleven  hundred.  One  of  the  prin- 
cipal structural  changes  was  the  division  of  England  and  Wales 
into  ten  regions,  each  with  a  divisional  organization  resembling 
the  organization  of  the  Union  itself.  The  divisional  conferences 
failed  to  become  important  intermediate  agencies  of  party  de- 
liberation, but  the  new  machinery  lent  itself  readily  to  party 
propaganda  and  discipline.  The  great  deliberative  agency  of 
the  party  continued  to  be  the  Conference,  meeting  annually  in 
some  important  city.1  At  first  this  body  did  not  assume  to 
give  formal  expression  to  its  views  on  questions  of  public  policy. 
But  since  1885  it  has  freely  exercised  the  right,  not  only  to  discuss 
•  such  matters,  but  to  adopt  resolutions  relating  to  them.  These 
expressions  of  principle  are  presumably  for  the  guidance  of  those 
who  are  directly  responsible  for  the  party's  course  in  Parliament 

1  The  original  plan  of  triennial  meetings,  to  be  held  invariably  at  London,  was 
abandoned  in  1868. 


272  GOVERNMEN  is  OF   EUROPE 

and  before  the  country,  namely,  the  ministers  if  the  party  is  in 
power,  the  Opposition  leaders  if  it  is  not  in  power.  But  as  a 
matter  of  fa<  t.  very  little  attention  is  paid  to  these  pronounce- 
ments within  parliamentary  circles.  The  Conservative  Con- 
ference repeatedly  passed  resolutions  looking  to  preferential 
tariffs  before  [903  without  creating  a  ripple  on  the  political  sea; 
the  same  proposal-,  coming  from  the  Colonial  Secretary,  raised  a 
tempest.  Again  and  again,  prior  to  [914,  the  Conference  de- 
1  lared  for  woman  suffrage,  but  without  perceptible  effect  on  Un- 
parliamentary members. 

From  first  to  last,  the  Union  has  found  its  sphere  of  usefulness 
in  relation  with  the  voters  rather  than  in  relation  with  the  party 
leaders  and  lawmakers.  It  has  never  been  able  to  override  the 
independence  of  the  party  organization  in  Parliament;  as  has 
been  pointed  out,  it  has  nothing  directly  to  do  with  the  selection 
of  the  party  chief  who,  when  the  party  is  in  power,  will  occupy 
the  supremely  important  post  of  premier.  Its  own  function,  as 
Lowell  puts  it,  is  really  that  of  an  electioneering  body.  It  organ- 
izes new  local  associations  where  they  are  needed,  aids  and  en- 
courages local  associations  that  are  beset  with  special  difficulties, 
distributes  literature,  provides  popular  lectures,  collects  and 
distributes  information.  In  these  ways  it  renders  invaluable 
service.  But  as  an  organ  for  the  popular  control  of  the  party, 
for  formulating  opinion,  and  for  ascertaining  and  giving  effect 
to  the  wishes  of  the  rank  and  file,  it  is  a  mere  pretense.1  This 
has  not  been  the  less  true  since  1006,  when  the  machinery  was 
overhauled  and  made  more  broadly  representative.2 

The  National  Liberal  Federation.  —  The  triumph  of  the  Con- 
servatives in  the  elections  of  1874  was  attributed  mainly  to 
superior  organization,  and  the  idea  took  hold  among  Liberals 
that  they,  too,  must  organize  nationally.  The  Birmingham  cau- 
cus took  the  initiative,  and  a  conference,  attended  by  representa- 
tives of  ninety-five  local  associations,  was  held  at  that  city  in 
May,  1877.  A  constitution  was  adopted;  officers  —  chiefly 
residents  of  Birmingham,  with  Mr.  Chamberlain  as  president  — 

'Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,  570.  The  besl  accounts  of  (In-  National 
Union  arc  Lowell,  op.  tit., I,  ("hap.  xxx,  and  Ostrogor^ki,  Democracy  and  the  Or ganiza- 
tion  of  Political  Parties,  I,  250  286.  Party  methods  arc  fully  described  in  Ostro- 
gorski,  up.  tit..  I,  320-501. 

2Thc  divisional  organization  was  remodeled  and  extended,  and  the  Council 
—  renamed  the  Central  Council  was  enlarged  to  include  (among  other  persons) 
one  representative  for  every  fifty  thousand  voters,  or  fraction  thereof,  in  each 

inty,  and  one  for  every  twenty  five  thousand  in  each  parliamentary  borough. 
It  should  be  noted  that  the  National  Union  here  described  covers  England  and 
Wales  only;  Scotland  and  Ireland  have  separate  organizations. 


THE  MAJOR   PARTIES  273 

were  elected ;  and,  under  the  name  of  National  Liberal  Federa- 
tion, an  organization  was  launched  which  was  intended  not  only 
to  strengthen  the  party  machinery  throughout  the  country  but 
to  wield  large,  if  not  controlling,  influence  in  shaping  party  policy. 
The  principal  difference,  indeed,  between  the  new  Liberal  organ- 
ization and  the  Conservative  National  Union  was  that,  whereas 
the  latter  was  founded  almost  exclusively  for  purposes  of  propa- 
ganda and  discipline,  the  former  was  intended  to  be  largely,  if  not 
primarily,  a  policy-determining  agency.  In  the  words  of  Lowell, 
"  it  was  expected  to  be,  as  Mr.  Chamberlain  expressed  it,  a  Lib- 
eral parliament  outside  the  Imperial  legislature ;  not,  indeed, 
doing  the  work  of  that  body,  but  arranging  what  work  it  should 
do,  or  rather  what  work  the  Liberal  members  should  bring  before 
it,  and  what  attitude  they  should  assume.  By  this  process 
the  initiative  on  all  the  greater  issues,  so  far  as  the  Liberal  party 
was  concerned,  would  be  largely  transferred  from  the  Treasury 
Bench  to  the  Federation."  2 

The  government  of  the  new  organization  was  designed  to  be 
rather  more  democratic  than  that  of  the  Conservative  Union. 
The  chief  authority  was  a  Council,  which  was  a  representative 
assembly  composed  of  delegates  from  the  local  associations,  not 
two  from  each,  as  in  the  Conservative  Conference,  but  from  five 
to  twenty,  according  to  population.  At  its  annual  meetings  this 
body  elected  a  president,  a  vice-president,  a  treasurer,  and  an 
honorary  secretary ;  and  these  officers,  combined  with  from  two 
to  five  delegates  chosen  by  each  local  association,  and  with  twen- 
ty-five persons  named  by  the  Committee  itself,  made  up  the  Gen- 
eral Committee.  The  Council  was  the  "  Liberal  parliament," 
in  which  issues  and  policies  were  threshed  out ;  the  Committee 
(which  established  its  headquarters  at  Birmingham)  was  an  ex- 
ecutive agency,  charged  mainly  with  organizing  local  associa- 
tions and  keeping  up  the  party  morale. 

Like  the  Conservative  Union,  the  Liberal  Federation  grew 
slowly.  In  the  first  year,  not  above  one  hundred  local  associa- 
tions joined,  and  up  to  1886  the  number  did  not  exceed  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty-five.  The  disruption  of  the  party  at  this  point  on 
Gladstone's  first  Home  Rule  Bill  threatened  complete  disaster. 
The  storm,  however,  was  weathered ;  indeed,  certain  benefits 
resulted.  The  constitution  was  amended  to  make  representa- 
tion on  the  Council  more  nearly  proportional  to  population ; 
the  offices  were  moved  from  Birmingham  to  London,  and  closer 
relations  were  established  with  Gladstone  and  other  party  chiefs 
1  Government  of  England,  I,  504. 


274  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

in  Parliament  ;  and  the  new  unity  of  the  depleted  party  was  evi- 
denced  by  the  gathering  in  of  upwards  of  five  hundred  associa- 
tions within  two  years.1  As  early  as  188]  the  Council  began  to 
try  its  hand  at  program-making,  and  during  the  ensuing  decade 

this  function  was  continuously  exercised,  although  it  fell  out  that 
what  the  body  was  usually  expected  to  do  was  to  ratify  resolutions 
prepared  in  advance  by  committees,  rather  than  to  work  out  its 
own  statements  of  policy. 

The  party  out  of  power  habitually  talks  freely  about  what  it 
would  do  if  it  were  in  power,  especially  if  it  has  no  hope  of  an 
earlv  return  to  power.  This  was  the  position  of  the  Liberals  in 
1886-92  ;  and  the  Council's  resolutions  committed  the  party 
from  year  to  year  to  a  steadily  widening  program,  until  a  culmina- 
tion was  reached  in  the  remarkable  Newcastle  Program  of  1891.2 
The  Gladstone  and  Rosebery  governments  of  1892-95  were 
handicapped  by  their  inability  to  meet  the  expectations  that  had 
been  aroused,  and  the  party  leaders  became  profoundly  convinced 
of  the  inexpediency  of  such  platform-making  as  had  been  indulged 
in  at  the  successive  Council  meetings.  Despite  the  opposition 
of  radicals,  therefore,  this  function  of  the  Council  was  henceforth 
exercised  under  more  restraint;  and  from  1896  the  preparation 
of  business  for  the  General  Committee,  as  well  as  for  the  Council, 
was  vested  in  an  Executive  Committee3  which,  although  includ- 
ing no  members  of  Parliament,  was  expected  to  be  a  small  body 
of  men  who  could  be  depended  upon  not  to  bring  embarrass- 
ment upon  the  parliamentary  leaders.  Nowadays,  therefore, 
the  Council  is  hardly  more  than  an  annual  meeting  of  party 
delegates  to  hear  and  approve  whatever  announcements  and  pro- 
posals may  be  submitted  to  it  by  the  General  Committee,  whose 
decisions,  in  turn,  are  really  those  of  the  smaller  Executive 
Committee.  Power  has  thus  passed  from  the  huge  represents  t  ive 
Council  to  a  handful  of  carefully  picked  men ;  and  it  is  communi- 
cated to  the  party  chiefs  and  members  in  Parliament  in  only  a 
very  limited  degree.  Equally  with  the  less  ambitious  Conserva- 
tive Union,  the  Liberal  Federation  has  failed  to  build  up  and  main- 
tain a  great  popular  party  legislature.  Like  its  Tory  counter- 
part, it  is  a  very  active  and  influential  agency  for  the  dissemina- 
tion of  party  literature,  the  promotion  of  local  party  organization, 
and  the  administration  of  party  machinery.     But  as  an  organ  for 

1  Watson,  National  Liberal  Federation,  54-82. 

2  See  p.  248. 

3  This  committee  superseded  a  General  Purposes  Committee  established  some 
years  earlier  and  consisting  of  the  officers  of  the  Federation  and  not  more  than 
twenty  other  persons  designated  by  the  General  Committee. 


THE   MAJOR  PARTIES  275 

the  popular  control  of  party  policy  and  of  the  acts  of  the  party 
representatives  in  Parliament,  it,  too,  is  a  sham.  In  neither  party 
has  a  popular  non-official  organization  been  able  to  make  head- 
way against  the  bed-rock  principle  that  in  a  cabinet  system  of 
government  the  parliamentary  leaders  must  also  be  the  party 
leaders.1 

1  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,  Chap,  xxix;  Ostrogorski,  Democracy  and  the 
Organization  of  Political  Parties,  I,  287-328.  The  principal  account  of  the  Liberal 
Federation  is  Watson,  National  Liberal  Federation,  which  covers  the  subject  to 
1906.  Watson  was  president  of  the  federation  from  1890  to  1902.  His  book, 
however,  fails  to  give  the  first-hand  view  of  the  organization's  workings  that  might 
reasonably  have  been  expected. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

THE   MINOR   PARTIES:     LABOR    IN   POLITICS   AND   IRISH   HOME 

RULE 

Labor  in  Politics  :    Trade  Unionism  and  Socialism.     -  Of  the 
two  minor  parties  prior  to   1914,   the  lesser  in  parliamentary 
strength  but  the  more  important  otherwise  was  built  up  mainly 
by  organized  labor.     Speaking  broadly,    the  Labor  party   is  a 
product  of   the   twin  forces  of   trade  unionism    and   socialism, 
of  which  the  one  may  be  said  to  have  supplied  mainly  the  organi- 
zation and  the  funds,  and  the  other,  the  energy  and  the  spirit. 
Trade  unions  are  organizations  of  workers  in  particular  crafts 
intended  to  promote  collective  bargaining  with  employers  and 
other  concerted  action  in  the  laborers'  interest.     They  began 
to  appear  in  England  during  the  earlier  stages  of  the  industrial 
revolution,  and  in  the  nineteenth  century  they  gained  control 
of  most  of  the  important  industries.     Their  legal  status  was  long 
a  source  of  controversy.     The  earlier  restraints  of  law  upon  labor 
combinations  were  largely  abolished  in  1871-76.     But  in  1901 
fresh  discontent  was  aroused  by  a  decision  handed  down  by  the 
House  of  Lords  in  the  TafT  Vale  case  recognizing  the  right  of 
employers   to   collect   damages   from   trade  unions   for   injuries 
arising  from  strikes.1     In  1906  the  Liberals  rewarded  the  labor 
elements  for  their  support  by  passing  a  Trade-Unions  and  Trade- 
Disputes  Act  practically  exempting  the  unions  from  legal  process.2 
Again,  in  the  Osborne  Judgment  of  1909  the  House  of  Lords  put 
pressure  on  the  unions  by  ruling  that  they  could  not  legall) 
collect  compulsory  contributions  for  the  support  of  labor  mem- 
bers of  the  House  of  Commons;    and  once  more  the  Liberals 
saved  the  day  for  their  allies,  first  by  the  act  of  191 1  providing 
salaries  for  all  members  of  the  popular  branch  of  Parliament, 
and  later  by  a  new  Trade-Union  Act  of  1913  which  permits  trade- 
union  funds  to  be  used  for  political  purposes  in  so  far  as  they  repre- 
sent contributions  made  voluntarily  for  these  purposes.3     The 

1  Ogg,  Economic  Development  of  Modern  Europe,  432-433. 

2  Ibid.,  433-434- 

8  See  pp.  174  i75- 

276 


THE   MINOR   PARTIES  277 

Trade-Union  Congress,  which  holds  annual  meetings  for  the 
consideration  of  political  and  industrial  questions,  represents  at 
the  present  time  approximately  three  million  unionists  ;  and  since 
1899  there  has  been  a  General  Federation  of  Trade  Unions,  whose 
functions  are  chiefly  financial,  and  which  has  a  membership  some- 
what exceeding  one  million,  in  part  duplicating  that  of  the  Con- 
gress.1 

Forty  years  ago  men  freely  predicted  that  socialism  would 
never  take  root  among  the  English  people.  But  in  point  of  fact 
England  has  of  late  been  hardly  less  stirred  by  socialist  agitation 
than  Germany  and  France,  and  the  spirit  and  ideals  of  socialism 
have  been  injected  into  parliamentary  debates,  and  even  into 
national  and  local  legislation,  quite  as  extensively  as  in  most  of 
the  continental  states.  The  number  of  organized  socialists  in 
the  country  has  never  been  large  ;  even  to-day  it  does  not  exceed 
fifty  thousand.  But  there  are  many  men  and  women  who  are 
thoroughgoing  socialists,  yet  not  members  of  any  socialist  party 
or  society,  and  multitudes  of  others  whose  minds  are  saturated 
with  socialist  ideas,  who  however  do  not  call  themselves  by  the 
name.  The  oldest  socialist  organization  of  importance  is  the 
British  Socialist  party,  which,  founded  in  1880  as  the  Social 
Democratic  Federation,  maintained  absolute  independence  until 
1 916,  when,  with  a  net  numerical  strength  of  only  ten  thousand, 
it  entered  into  affiliation  with  the  Labor  party.  The  most 
famous  socialist  organization  is  the  Fabian  Society,  established 
in  1883,  an<i  having  a  present  membership  of  less  than  three 
thousand,  but  including  a  long  list  of  scholars,  writers,  clergymen, 
and  other  men  of  achievement  and  influence.2  The  most  prom- 
inent politically  of  socialist  organizations  is  the  Independent 
Labor  party,  organized  in  1893  as  a  result  of  the  first  serious 
effort  to  unite  the  forces  of  socialism  and  labor.  This  party, 
whose  membership  to-day  is  about  thirty  thousand,  eventually 
attained  a  certain  amount  of  success;    at  the  elections  of  1906, 

1  The  standard  treatise  on  British  trade  unionism  is  S.  and  B.  Webb,  History 
of  Trade  Unionism,  (new  ed.,  London,  1920).  Somewhat  more  recent  is  G.  D.  II. 
Cole,  The  World  of  Labour:  a  Discussion  of  the  Present  and  Future  of  Trade  Unionism 
(2d  ed.,  London,  1915). 

2  An  official  statement  of  the  principles  and  objects  of  the  Fabian  Society  will 
be  foundin  Orth,  Socialism  and  Democracy  in  Europe,  327-330.  The  best  general 
account  is  E.  R.  Pease,  History  of  the  Fabian  Society  (London,  1916).  The  New 
Statesman,  a  weekly  organ,  was  founded  in  1914  to  advocate  Fabian  doctrines. 
The  history  of  English  socialism  is  accurately  presented  in  B.  Villiers,  The  Socialist 
Movement  in  England  (2d  ed.,  London,  1910),  and  in  M.  Beer,  Geschichtc  des  So- 
zialismus  fn  England  (Stuttgart,  1913).  There  is  an  English  translation  of  the 
last-mentioned  book  under  the  title  History  of  British  Socialism,  2  vols.  (London, 
1919-20). 


278  G0\  ERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

when  the  tide  of  radicalism  was  running  strong,  seven  of  it-  can- 
didates and  sixteen  of  it-  members  were  elected  to  the  House  of 
Commons.  It  has  always  been  too  aggressively  socialist,  how- 
ever, to  attract  the  mass  of  laboring  men. 

The  Labor  Party  :  Composition  and  Character.  —  As  tar  back 
as  i  .S74  a  few  members  of  Parliament  were  elected  as  labor  men, 
and  as  the  nineteenth  century  drew  to  a  close  strong  demand 
arose  in  labor  circles  for  a  broadly  based  party  which  should  carry 
on  political  activities  in  behalf  of  labor  precisely  as  the  Trade- 
Union  Congress  and  its  subsidiaries  carried  on  activities  of  a 
financial  and  industrial  character.  This  nc^d  was  met  by  the 
organization  of  the  present  Labor  party.  The  Trade-Union 
Congn->  of  1 899,  meeting  at  Plymouth,  caused  to  be  brought  into 
existence  a  group  of  representatives  of  all  cooperative,  trade- 
union,  socialist,  and  working-class  organizations  that  were  will- 
ing to  share  in  an  effort  to  increase  the  representation  of  labor  in 
Parliament.  This  body,  numbering  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
nine  delegate.-,  held  its  first  meeting  at  London  in  February,  1900, 
and  an  organization  was  formed  in  which  the  ruling  forces  were 
the  politically  inclined,  but  non-socialistic,  trade  unions.  The 
object  of  the  affiliation  was  declared  to  be  "  to  establish  a  dis- 
tinct labor  group  in  Parliament,  who  shall  have  their  own  whips 
and  agree  upon  their  own  policy,  which  must  embrace  a  readi- 
ness to  cooperate  with  any  party  which  for  the  time  being  may 
be  engaged  in  promoting  legislation  in  the  direct  interest  of 
labor,  and  be  equally  ready  to  associate  themselves  with  any 
party  in  opposing  measures  having  an  opposite  tendency."1 

The  new  organization  grew  rapidly.  At  the  elections  of  1906 
fifty  candidates  were  put  in  the  field,  and  twenty-nine  (of  whom 
only  four  had  had  parliamentary  experience),  were  elected  — 
forming  by  far  the  largest  labor  group  that  had  as  yet  appeared 
on  the  floor  of  the  House  of  Commons.  The  Liberals  now  had  a 
majority  sufficiently  large  to  make  them  entirely  independent. 
Yet  they  were  under  obligation  to  the  labor  elements  for  past 
support  and  by  past  pledges,  and.  furthermore,  many  of  them 
were  not  opposed  to  the  more  moderate  labor  demands.  Conse- 
quently, the  political  "  revolution  "  of  1906  became  the  starting 
point  in  a  new  era  of  labor  legislation  and  labor  relief,  whose 
earliest  important  development  was,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  the 
adoption  of  the  Trade-Unions  and   Trade-Disputes  Act  of  190C. 

After  its  great  victory  the  Labor  Representation  Committee, 
having  attained  its  immediate  object  of  creating  a  distinct  rep- 

1  Labour  Year  Book  (1916),  306. 


THE   MINOR  PARTIES  279 

resentation  of  labor  in  Parliament,  dropped  its  unassuming  name 
and  took  the  title  of  "Labor  party."  The  constitution  of  the 
organization  was  overhauled,  and  the  governing  body  was  made 
an  annual  congress,  composed  of  delegates  representing  the  affil- 
iated societies  in  proportion  to  their  membership.  The  party 
executive  consists  of  a  national  committee  of  sixteen  members, 
who  are  apportioned  among  the  principal  affiliated  bodies  and 
elected  at  the  annual  congress  by  the  groups  of  delegates  rep- 
resenting those  bodies  respectively.  This  committee  elects  its 
own  chairman  (who  thereby  becomes  chairman  of  the  party), 
approves  candidates  and  sanctions  candidatures,  issues  party 
literature,  and  in  a  general  way  directs  the  work  of  the  party 
outside  of  the  House  of  Commons.  It  cooperates  with  the  parlia- 
mentary group  in  considering  the  legislative  program  of  each  ses- 
sion, and  on  important  matters  of  policy  joint  meetings  between 
the  two  bodies  are  arranged.  It  is  expected  of  candidates  for 
seats  that  they  will  promise'  to  be  guided  by  the  decisions 
of  the  party,  arrived  at  in  the  annual  congresses,  at  least  in 
matters  related  to  the  objects  for  which  the  party  exists.1  The 
party  is  financed  by  fees  assessed  upon  the  affiliated  societies 
at  the  rate  of  id.  per  member  per  year.  In  1914  the  party  had 
committees  on  foreign  affairs,  electoral  reform,  unemployment, 
finance,  government  workers'  conditions,  and  several  other  sub- 
jects. The  parliamentary  group,  known  as  the  Parliamentary 
Labor  party,  was  compactly  organized,  with  its  chairman,  sec- 
retary, and  whips.  Outside  of  Parliament,  the  party  was, 
however,  simply  a  loose  federation  of  trade  unions,  trades  coun- 
cils, local  labor  parties,  socialist  societies,  and  cooperative 
societies,  having,  in  1915,  a  total  membership  of  somewhat  over 
two  millions.  This  flexibility  of  organization  seems  to  be  a  main 
reason  why  the  party  has  prospered  beyond  all  other  political 
combinations  of  labor  in  the  country.  An  incidental,  but  ex- 
tremely important,  effect  of  such  flexibility  is  that  men  of  all 
social  classes  and  all  industrial  connections  belong  to  the  party 
—  scholars,  writers,  dramatists,  artists,  lawyers,  teachers,  phy- 
sicians, clergymen,  and  even  employers  of  labor,  equally  with  the 
workmen  of  factory,  shop,  and  farm. 

The  Labor  party  has  served  as  no  other  agency  to  link  up  so- 
cialism and  trade  unionism.  Until  1907  it  refused  to  commit 
itself  to  socialistic  principles,  and,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  the 

1  This  illustrates  the  fact  that  Labor  organization  is  more  unified  than  Liberal 
or  Conservative  organization.  Liberal  and  Conservative  members  of  Parliament 
are  in  no  way  bound  by  the  action  of  the  party  congresses. 


28o  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

party  owed  its  earlier  si  rengl  h  largely  to  t  his  policy.  In  the  year 
mentioned,  however,  the  party  congress  adopted  a  resolution 
declaring  for  "the  socialization  of  the  means  of  production, 

distribution,  and  exchange,  to  be  controlled  in  a  democratic 
stale  in  the  interest  of  the  entire  community,  and  the  complete 
emancipation  of  labor  from  the  domination  of  capitalism  and  land- 
lordism, with  the  establishment  of  social  and  economic  equality 
between  the  sexes."  This  is,  of  course,  a  socialistic  declaration, 
vet  with  no  hint  of  class  war  or  revolution,  and  its  general  effect 
was  to  augment  rather  than  to  diminish  the  party's  strength. 
In  point  of  fact,  such  of  the  party  leaders  as  J.  Ramsay  Mac- 
Donald  and  Philip  Snowden,  and  more  than  half  of  the  parlia- 
mentary group,  are  socialists.  The  adoption  of  the  resolution  of 
1907  brought  the  Labor  party  and  the  "  I.  L.  P."  into  closer 
accord,  and  thereafter  the  Labor  forces  at  Westminster  acted 
substantially  as  a  unit.  In  the  period  1907-09  the  Labor  mem- 
bers advocated  medical  inspection  of  school  children,  compul- 
sory provision  of  meals  for  necessitous  school  children,  the  setting 
up  of  wage  boards  for  sweated  industries,  a  more  generous  ad- 
ministration of  the  fair-wages  clause  of  government  contracts, 
unemployment  insurance  and  the  establishment  of  labor  ex- 
changes, regulation  of  the  liquor  trade  on  the  principle  of  local 
option,  and  taxation  aimed  at  "  securing  for  the  communal 
benefit  all  unearned  increment  of  wealth  "  and  at  "  preventing 
the  retention  of  great  fortunes  in  private  hands."  It  aided  in 
the  enactment  of  the  old  age  pensions  and  miners'  eight  hour 
laws,  and  it  strenuously  opposed  tariff  reform,  especially  taxes 
on  food.  It  urged  salaries  for  members  of  the  House  of  Commons 
and  the  placing  of  returning  officers'  expenses  upon  the  public 
sury  ;  and  in  a  notable  resolution  introduced  in  1907  it  called 
for  the  abolition  of  the  House  of  Lords,  as  being  "  a  hindrance 
to  national  progress."1 

At  the  elections  of  January  and  December,  1910,  some  seats 
were  lost.  None  the  less,  the  spokesmen  of  labor  in  the  House  of 
Commons  from  1910  to  the  war  fluctuated  between  forty-two 
and  forty-five,  of  which  number  about  half  were  identified  with 
the  Labor  party  proper  and  the  remainder  with  the  Independent 
Labor  party  or  with  a  Liberal  Labor  element  which  pursued  its 
own  policy  in  industrial  matters  but  in  other  respects  was  only 
a  segment  of  the  Liberal  party.  After  1910  the  Labor  group 
occupied  a  position  of  power  altogether  disproportionate  to  its 
numerical  strength  ;  for  the  Liberal  government,  having  lost  the 

1  Labour  Year  Book  (1916),  323. 


THE   MINOR   PARTIES  281 

huge  parliamentary  majority  which  it  obtained  in  1906,  was 
dependent  upon  the  support  of  its  allies,  the  Nationalist  and  Labor 
members.  Naturally,  the  advantage  thus  gained  was  turned  to 
account  in  the  promotion  of  industrial  and  social  legislation.  The 
proposal  to  abolish  the  House  of  Lords  was  renewed,  but  the 
party  finally  gave  its  support  to  the  Government  program  of 
upper  chamber  reform  which  culminated  in  the  Parliament  Act 
of  191 1.  The  National  Insurance  Bill  and  the  bill  for  the  pay- 
ment of  members  were  likewise  carried  with  Labor  aid  in  191 1 ; 
and  Labor  was  to  a  great  extent  the  author  of.  the  Minimum 
Wage  Act  of  1912  and  the  Trade-Union  Act  of  1913.  In  1913 
the  party  introduced  a  bill  for  the  nationalization  of  mines  and 
minerals. 

The  influence  of  the  Labor  forces  on  legislation  was  thus  con- 
siderable. None  the  less  it  was  recognized  by  practical  labor 
leaders  that  the  situation  was  exceptional,  and  that  in  the  long 
run  labor  could  expect  to  be  politically  powerful  only  in  one  of 
two  ways  —  by  using  its  votes  under  some  consistent  plan 
within  the  ranks  of  the  older  parties  or  by  building  up  a  third 
party  of  sufficient  strength  to  combat  its  rivals  on  approximately 
even  terms.  The  second  of  these  alternatives,  although  not  hope- 
less, presented  great  difficulties.  The  elements  from  which  a 
great  coordinate  Labor  party  would  have  to  be  constructed  were, 
and  seemed  likely  to  remain,  fundamentally  inharmonious,  the 
principal  source  of  friction  being  socialism.  And,  even  if  the 
tendencies  to  internal  discord  could  be  overcome,  there  would 
remain  the  fact  that  among  the  English  people  the  bi-party 
system  appeared  to  be  solidly  intrenched  and  that  no  third  party 
had  ever  been  able  to  prevent  the  dissipation  of  its  strength 
through  the  continuous  re-absorption  of  its  membership  into  the 
ranks  of  the  Government  and  the  Opposition.1 

The  Irish  Nationalists :  the  Irish  Question  to  1905.  —  The 
second  minor  party  in  the  period  before  the  Great  War  was  the 
Irish  Nationalist  organization,  which  differed  from  all  of  the  other 

1  Op  the  fortunes  of  the  Labor  party  since  leasee  Chap.  XVTII.  The  political 
organization  of  labor  in  the  United  Kingdom  to  the  past  decade  is  adequately- 
described  in  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II,  Chap,  xxxiii,  and  more  fully  in 
C.  Noel,  The  Labour  Party,  What  it  Is,  and  What  it  Wants  (London,  1906),  and  A. 
W.  Humphrey,  History  of  Labor  Representation  (London,  1912).  See  E.  Porritt, 
"The  British  Socialist  Labor  Party,"  in  Polit.  Sci.  Qiiar.,  Sept.,  190S,  and  "The 
British  Labor  Party  in  igio,"  ibid.,  June,  1910;  M.  Alfassa,  "  Le  parti  ouvrier  au 
parlement  anglais,"  in  Ann.  des  Sei.  Polit.,  Jan.  15,  1908;  II.  \Y.  Ilonvill,  "The 
Payment  of  Labor  Representatives  in  Parliament,"  in  Polit.  Sci.  Quar.,  June,  1910; 
J.  K.  Hardie,  "The  Labor  Movement,"  in  Nineteenth  Century,  Dec,  .1906;  and  M. 
Hewlett,  "The  Labor  Party  of  the  Future,"  in  Fortnightly  Rev.,  Feb.,  1910. 


282  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

parties  in  that  it  was  established  and  managed  on  a  purely 
tional,  racial,  and  religious  basis.  The  dercesl  party  strife  of 
recent  decade-  has  centered  around  the  [rish  question.  Further- 
more, there  has  never  been  a  time  since  the  conquest  of  Ireland 
by  the  English  in  the  twelfth  century  when  there  was  not  an 
Irish  question  of  considerable  seriousness.  By  1850  the  question 
presented  three  main  phases.  The  first  was  religious.  Descend- 
ants of  Scottish  and  English  settlers,  grouped  mainly  in  live 
northern  and  northeastern  counties  of  the  province  of  Ulster, 
were  Protestants  (Episcopalians  or  Presbyterians) ;  the  remain- 
der of  the  population  —  nearly  four  fifths  —  was  almost  solidly 
Catholic.  Vet  the  Protestant  "  Church  of  England  and  Ireland  " 
was  the  established  church  throughout  the  island,  to  whose  sup- 
port all  of  the  people  were  required  to  contribute.  The  second 
aspect  of  the  question  was  agrarian.  A  long  series  of  conquests 
and  confiscations  had  brought  almost  all  of  the  land  into  the  hands 
of  English  proprietors,  and  the  once  independent  and  prosperous 
natives  had  sunk  to  the  level  of  a  poverty-stricken  peasantry, 
living  as  tenants  on  the  great  estates,  and  enjoying  scarcely 
any  rights  as  against  the  powerful  landlords.  The  third  difficulty 
was  political,  arising  out  of  the  fact  that  the  island  had  lost  even 
the  slender  rights  of  self-government  that  it  had  in  the  eighteenth 
century,  and  was  now  ruled  from  London  practically  as  a  crown 
colony. 

The  religious  grievance  was,  in  the  main,  removed  in  1869  by 
an  act  disestablishing  and  partially  disendowing  the  "  Church 
of  England  and  Ireland";1  and  the  land  situation  was  slowly 
unproved  by  legislation  begun  in  1870  and  carried  forward,  by 
both  Liberals  and  Conservatives,  until  1914,  when  the  question 
could  be  regarded  as  virtually  settled.2  The  problem  of  govern- 
ment proved  more  baffling.  As  has  been  explained,  Ireland  had 
a  separate  parliament  until  1800,  but  lost  it  in  that  year  by  acts, 
passed  concurrently  by  the  Irish  and  British  parliaments,  join- 
ing the  lesser  country  with  England,  Wales,  and  Scotland  in 
the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland.3  The  so- 
called  Irish  parliament  was  really  a  body  of  Englishmen  and 
English  sympathizers;  besides,  a  majority  for  the  union  bill  was 
obtained  by  wholesale  bribery.  The  Irish  people,  therefore, 
had  no  chance  to  influence  the  decision.  From  the  outsel  they 
strongly  opposed  the  new  arrangement .  and   their  protest   was 

1  Turner,  Ireland  and  England,  180-187. 

2  Ibid.,  188-225. 

3  See  p.  43. 


THE  MINOR   PARTIES  283 

registered  in  Emmet's  rebellion  of  1803  and  in  a  long  series  of 
unfortunate  events  during  ensuing  decades.  A  Catholic  Emanci- 
pation Act  of  1829,  which  made  £atholics  eligible  for  election  to 
Parliament  and  for  appointment  to  most  public  offices,  gave  some 
relief,  but  without  touching  the  fundamental  grievance.  Under 
the  leadership  of  Daniel  O'Connell,  who  believed  in  "  agitation 
within  the  law,"  a  peaceful  "  home  rule  "  movement  was  set  on 
foot  about  1834  with  a  view  to  the  complete  repeal  of  the  Act  of 
Union;  a  Repeal  Association  was  founded  in  1840.  The  agita- 
tion was  suppressed  in  1843  ^v  the  authorities;  whereupon 
various  insurrectionary  efforts  were  made,  with,  equal  lack  of 
success.  In  1858  a  Fenian  Brotherhood,  taking  its  name  from 
Fiana  Eirean,  the  old  national  militia,  was  organized  by  Irish 
refugees  in  the  United  States,  and  soon  both  England  and  Ire- 
land were  in  the  grip  of  a  revolutionary  movement  whose  aim  was 
nothing  less  than  to  establish  an  independent  Irish  republic  by 
a  policy  of  terrorism.  For  thirty  years  Fenian  outrages  (notably 
the  Phcenix  Park  murders  in  Dublin  in  1882)  and  drastic  acts 
of  suppression  on  the  part  of  the  government  followed  in  dreary 
succession.  Their  net  effect,  however,  was  only  to  add  to  the 
accumulated  misunderstandings  between  the  two  peoples.1 

The  methods  of  the  Fenians  were  disapproved  by  the  large 
numbers  of  Irishmen  who,  like  O'Connell,  believed  in  peaceful, 
legal  agitation,  and  in  1870  a  meeting  was  held  at  Dublin  at  which, 
under  the  leadership  of  Isaac  Butt,  a  young  Protestant  lawyer, 
a  Home  Government  Association  was  organized  with  a  view  to 
upholding  the  Irish  cause  in  a  fashion  better  calculated  to  win 
the  favorable  consideration  of  the  English  people.  The  object 
of  the  new  association,  as  set  forth  in  the  resolutions  of  the  Dublin 
conference,  was  to  secure  for  Ireland  a  parliament  of  her  own, 
and  to  obtain  for  that  parliament,  under  a  federal  arrangement, 
the  right  of  legislating  for,  and  regulating  all  matters  relating 
to,  the  internal  affairs  of  Ireland,  and  control  over  Irish  resources 
and  expenditure,  "  subject  to  the  obligation  of  contributing  our 
just  proportion  of  the  Imperial  expenditure."  Butt  himself 
advocated  "  the  federation  of  the  Empire  on  a  basis  of  self- 
governed  nations,"  on  lines  proposed  by  later  friends  of  devolu- 
tion.2 On  the  Dublin  platform  the  Association  (renamed,  in 
1873,  the  Irish  Home  Rule  League)  won  several  victories  at  by- 

1  The  testimony  of  Gladstone  should  be  noted,  however,  that  the  Fenian  activi- 
ties "produced  among  Englishmen  an  attitude  of  attention  and  preparedness 
which  qualified  them  to  embrace,  in  a  manner  foreign  to  their  habits  in  other  times, 
the  vast  importance  of  the  Irish  controversy." 

2  See  p.  201. 


vs.  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

elections;  and  at  the  general  elections  of  [874  it  returned 

mbers.  I  In  indifference  with  which  the  speeches  of  Knit 
and  his  colleagues  in  Parliament  were  greeted  led  the  League  to 
a  more  radical  stand ;  by  1880  the  full  repeal  of  the  legislation  of 
1800  had  become  the  minimum  program.  Meanwhile  Butt, 
whose  sanity  of  views  was  not  equaled  by  his  capacity  for  Leader- 
ship, was  practically  superseded,  in  1877,  by  one  of  the  most  re- 
markable orators  and  parliamentarians  of  the  time,  Charles 
Stewart  Parnell.  Although  barely  thirty  years  cf  age,  a  Protes- 
tant, and  a  landlord,  Parnell  quickly  transformed  a  disorganized 
faction  into  a  compact  and  aggres.-ave  party.  Fortified  by  an 
alliance  with  Michael  Davitt's  turbulent  Land  League,  and  wield- 
ing a  rod  of  iron  over  the  House  of  Commons  by  the  use  of  a  clever 
system  of  obstructionism,  the  new  leader  brought  the  Irish 
question  into  the  very  center  of  the  political  stage. 

Obviously,  the  success  of  the  movement  was  conditioned  upon 
the  support  of  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  great  English  parties. 
For  a  time  —  especially  when,  in  1885,  Salisbury  selected  for  the 
post  of  Lord  Lieutenant  in  Ireland  a  leading  advocate  of  the 
federal  idea  —  it  seemed  that  the  desired  backing  would  come 
from  the  Conservatives ;  and  at  the  elections  of  the  year  men- 
tioned the  Nationalists,  while  not  abandoning  their  own  cam- 
paign, worked  openly  for  the  success  of  Conservative  candidates. 
Conservative  opinion  on  the  subject  had,  however,  undergone  no 
real  change,  and  the  discovery  quickly  broke  the  alliance  and  left 
the  Salisbury  ministry  without  a  majority.  Now  it  appeared, 
however,  that  Mr.  Gladstone,  after  long  holding  out,  had  been 
won  over  to  the  cause ;  indeed  upon  becoming  prime  minister, 
in  January,  1886,  the  new  champion,  as  has  been  related  else- 
where, brought  in  a  bill  setting  up  a  separate  parliament  at  Dub- 
lin and  withdrawing  Irish  representation  altogether  from  the 
House  of  Commons  at  Westminster.1  Many  Liberal  members 
refused  to  support  the  measure,  which  failed  to  pass,  even  in  the 
lower  chamber.  Furthermore,  as  has  appeared,  the  bill  perma- 
nently disrupted  the  Liberal  ranks.  Hut  the  major  portion  of  the 
party,  which  remained  faithful  to  Gladstone's  leadership,  now 
accepted  Home  Rule  as  one  of  its  cardinal  tenets;  and  when,  in 
1893,  Gladstone's  last  ministry  brought  in  another  bill  on  the 
subject,  the  effort  was  unsuccessful  only  becau>c  of  an  adverse 
vote  by  the  Unionist  majority  in  the  House  of  Lords.  During 
the  ensuing  decade  of  Unionist  rule  (1895-1905)  the  question  was 
in  abeyance.     There  was  much  excellent  legislation  for  Ireland ; 

1  Sec  p.   2  |7. 


THE   MINOR   PARTIES  285 

but  the  party  was  unalterably  opposed  to  Home  Rule,  and  agita- 
tion on  the  subject  was  recognized  to  be  practically  useless.1 

The  Issue  Analyzed  :  the  Government  of  Ireland.  —  When  the 
Liberals  regained  power  it  was  assumed  that,  sooner  or  later, 
they  would  renew  the  attempts  of  1886  and  1893.  That  they  did 
not  do  so  for  several  years  was  due  to  the  disinclination  of  the 
leaders  to  jeopardize  the  party's  position,  to  the  vast  majority 
in  the  House  of  Commons  which  relieved  the  party  of  any  need 
of  aid  from  the  Nationalists,  and  to  informal  pledges  made  upon 
taking  office  that  a  Home  Rule  bill  would  not  be  introduced  in 
the  parliament  elected  in  1906.2  In  the  course  of  time  the  situa- 
tion changed  completely.  The  parliamentary  elections  of  1910 
stripped  the  Asquith  ministry  of  its  huge  majority  and  left  it 
dependent  upon  the  votes  of  the  Nationalist  and  Labor  groups. 
Like  the  Laborites,  the  Nationalists  were  duly  appreciative  of 
their  new  importance,  and  they  spared  no  effort  to  impress  upon 
the  Liberal  leaders  that  the  price  of  their  support  would  be  a 
Home  Rule  bill.3  Furthermore,  whereas  formerly  such  a  measure 
would  have  been  certain  to  be  defeated  in  the  House  of  Lords, 
the  Parliament  Act  of  191 1  opened  a  way  for  its  enactment  re- 
gardless of  Unionist  opposition.  The  upshot  was  that  on  April 
11,  191 2,  the  premier  introduced  a  comprehensive  Home  Rule 

1  The  literature  of  the  Irish  question  is  very  extensive,  and  only  a  few  of  the  most 
useful  books  and  articles  can  be  mentioned  in  these  footnotes.  A  fuller  sketch  of 
the  Home  Rule  movement  than  that  given  here  is  May  and  Holland,  Constiln- 
tional  History  of  England,  III,  Chap.  iii.  The  best  brief  survey  of  Irish  history  is 
P.  W.  Joyce',  Concise  History  of  Ireland  from  the  Earliest  Times  to  igo8  (20th  ed., 
Dublin,  1014).  The  best  account  of  Irish  affairs  in  the  eighteenth  century  is  W. 
E.  H.  Lecky,  History  of  England  in  the  Eighteenth  Century  (New  York,  1878-90), 
Vols.  VTI-VTIL  An  excellent  summary  of  recent  history  is  E.  Barker,  Ireland  in 
the  Last  Fifty  Years  (Oxford,  1917).  The  best  biography  of  Parnell  is  R.  B. 
O'Brien,  Life  of  Charles  Stewart  Parnell,  2  vols.  (New  York,  1898),  and  the  standard 
history  of  the  Nationalist  party  is  F.  H.  O'Donnell,  History  of  the  Irish  Parlia- 
mentary Party,  2  vols.  (London,  19 10).  An  excellent  collection  of  studies  by 
specialists  is  R.  B.  O'Brien  [ed.]  Two  Centuries  of  Irish  History,  1691-1870  (2d_ed., 
London,  1907).  The  most  judicious  surveys  of  Irish  history  in  relation  to  British 
control,  and  of  the  entire  problem  of  Ireland's  cultural  and  political  status,  are 
L.  Paul-Dubois,  Ulrlande  eontemporaine  et  la  question  Irlandaise  (Paris,  1907), 
trans,  by  T.  M.  Kettle  under  the  title  Contemporary  Ireland  (London,  1908),  and 
E.  R.  Turner,  Ireland  and  England  (New  York,  1919). 

2  An  Irish  Council  bill,  introduced  in  1907,  proposed  to  put  eight  of  the  principal 
Irish  boards  under  the  control  of  a  central  Representative  Council  consisting  of  24 
members  appointed  (after  the  first  time)  by  the  Lord  Lieutenant  and  82  others  elected 
on  the  local  government  register.  The  object  was  merely  administrative  "devolu- 
tion," and  no  changes  in  legislative  machinery  were  contemplated.  Irish  sentiment 
was  unfavorable,  and  the  bill  was  dropped  after  its  first  reading. 

3  "I  believe  the  Liberals  are  sincerely  friendly  to  Home  Rule,"  declared  the  Na- 
tionalist leader,  John  Redmond,  in  a  speech  before  an  American  audience;  "but, 
sincere  or  not,  we  have  the  power,  and  will  make  them  toe  the  line." 


286  GOVERNMENTS  OP    EUROPE 

bill,  the  third  great  measure  of  the  kind  to  be  sponsored  by  his 
party. 

Before  considering  the  nature  and  lortuncs  of  this  measure  it 
will  he  well  to  look  somewhat  more  closely  into  the  governmental 
system  which  its  authors  proposed  to  supplant,  and  to  summarize 
the  arguments  chiefly  employed  by  the  parties  to  the  historic 
controversy.  The  nominal  head  of  the  government  in  Ireland  is 
a  dignitary  known  as  the  Lord  Lieutenant,  who,  like  the  governor- 
general  of  Canada  or  Australia,  is  regardedas  thedirect  represent- 
ative of  the  sovereign.  In  earlier  centuries  the  Lord  Lieutenant 
actually  ruled  the  country.  But  with  the  growth  of  the  i 
net  system  in  Great  Britain  this  official,  like  the  king  himself, 
receded  into  an  honorable  inactivity,  while  the  control  of  affairs 
passed  into  the  hands  of  a  minister,  nominally  his  inferior,  known 
as  the  Chief  Secretary  for  Ireland.  The  Lord  Lieutenant  lives 
in  semi-regal  style  in  Dublin  Castle,  but  is  chiefly  useful  nowa- 
days as  a  symbol  of  British  authority.  "  A  vision  of  half  a  dozen 
victorias  with  four  high-steppers  apiece,  outriders,  bright  liver- 
ies, English  military  bands  crashing  out '  God  Save  the  King  '  — 
that  is  the  Lord  Lieutenant."1 

The  true  center  of  the  government  is  the  Chief  Secretary. 
He  is  a  member  of  the  ministry  of  the  United  Kingdom,  and  is 
appointed  in  the  same  manner  as  other  members.  He  is  invari- 
ably also  a  member  of  the  cabinet,2  and  to  a  large  extent  he  guides 
the  Irish  policy  of  that  body ;  nine  months  of  every  year  he  spends 
at  London,  and  only  three  months  at  Dublin.  At  the  same  time, 
he  is  in  charge  of  all  branches  of  executive  and  administrative 
work  in  the  lesser  island.  The  government  at  Dublin,  of  which 
the  Chief  Secretary  is  thus  the  generalissimo,  consisted  in  1914 
of  seven  main  departments  —  agriculture  and  technical  instruc- 
tion, local  government,  education,  etc.  —  and  was  so  elaborately 
organized  as  to  comprise  not  fewer  than  sixty-seven  boards  and 
other  more  or  less  distinct  subdivisions.  Practically  all  appoint- 
ments were  made,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Lieutenant,  by  the 
Chief  Secretary,  including  the  police  and  the  judges  of  both  the 
county  and  higher  courts.  The  Chief  Secretary  was  also  endowed 
with  large  powers  of  the  purse,  and  with  almost  unlimited  author- 
ity to  order  arrests  and  imprisonments. 

The  executive  branch  of  the  government,  while  thus  separate 
from  the  English  executive  service,  was  mainly  in  English  hands ; 

1  B.  William-  [ed.],  Ihnvr  Rule  Problems,  37. 

2  Unless  the  Lord  Lieutenant  is  a  member,  which  formerly  was  often  the  case, 
but  is  not  so  nowadays. 


THE  MINOR  PARTIES  287 

although,  toward  the  close  of  the  nineteenth  century,  appoint- 
ments in  certain  departments  were  given  in  increasing  numbers 
to  Irishmen.  Furthermore,  the  Chief  Secretary  and  his  subordi- 
nates were  not  responsible  to  an  Irish  parliament  or  to  any  other 
organized  Irish  authority.  Responsibility  lay  only  to  the  general 
parliament  at  Westminster.  Finally,  the  country's  legislation 
—  whether  laws  common  to  all  parts  of  the  United  Kingdom  or 
measures  applicable  to  Ireland  only  —  had  to  be  enacted  by  this 
same  general  parliament.  Irish  laws  were,  therefore,  made  by 
a  body  which  was  mainly  English,  Welsh,  and  Scottish  ;  although 
it  is  to  be  observed  that  Ireland  was  not  only  represented  in  this 
body,  but  after  the  great  mid-century  era  of  emigration,  was  dis- 
tinctly over-represented,  and  that  she  therefore  bore  a  share, 
and  a  disproportionate  share,  in  the  making  of  laws  for  England, 
Wales,  and  Scotland.1 

All  in  all,  the  system  of  government  was  neither  so  bad  as  it 
was  generally  painted  by  Irishmen  nor  so  good  as  Englishmen 
were  accustomed  to  regard  it.  After  the  opening  of  the  offices 
to  natives,  the  introduction  of  merit  principles,  and  the  democrati- 
zation of  local  government  by  the  County  Councils  Act  of  1898, 
the  system  was,  indeed,  not  intrinsically  bad  at  all.2  It  stood  in 
need  of  only  some  changes  of  detail  to  be  stamped  as  both  econom- 
ical and  efficient.  None  the  less,  it  was  not  an  Irish  government ; 
it  was  not  even  a  government  that  was  directly  responsible  to 
Irish  opinion ;  hence  it  was  probably  futile  to  expect  it  to  satisfy 
the  political  instincts  and  longings  of  any  considerable  section 
of  the  Irish  people. 

Arguments  on  Home  Rule.  —  This  brings  us  to  a  summary  — 
for  that  is  all  that  space  permits  —  of  the  arguments  used  by 
the  two  sides  down  to  1914  in  the  Home  Rule  controversy; 
although  it  is  to  be  observed  that  no  one  person  or  group  of  per- 
sons would  urge  with  equal  vigor,  or  would  necessarily  support, 
all  of  the  arguments  advanced  on  either  side.  Disregarding 
hasty  and  irresponsible  charges,  prompted  by  bitterness  and 
passion,  Home  Rule  has  been  advocated  chiefly  on  the  following 
grounds:  (1)  The  Act  of  Union  of  1800  was  passed  to  punish 
the  Irish  for  the  rebellion  of  1798.  It  was  a  war  measure,  forced 
upon  the  native  population  by  an  unrepresentative  and  heavily 
bribed  parliament,  and  therefore  has  always  lacked  moral 
validity.     (2)   The  Irish  have  conclusively  shown  that,    as  a 

1  See  p.  126. 

2  On  the  reform  of  local  government  see  Williams,  Home  Ride  Problems,  Chap,  v, 
and  J.  Clancy,  Local  Government  in  Ireland  (Dublin,  1899). 


288  (i<>\  ERNMEN  rS    01    EUROPE 

people,  they  want  Home  Rule.  From  [884,  when  the  masses 
first  became  parliamentary  electors,  to  101  \.  eighty  <  onsl  ilium  its 
out  of  one  hundred  and  one  in  which  members  were  elected  by 
popular  vot<  .  regularly  sent  Nationalist,  i.e.,  Home  Rule,  repre 
sentatives  to  the  House  of  Commons.  The  only  formidable 
opposition  was  in  Ulster,  and  even  there  the  opponents  were  in  a 
minority.1  (3)  Far  from  being  a  step  toward  the  dissolution  of 
the  Empire,  Home  Rule  would  strengthen  CmperiaJ  ties.  The 
[rish  had  no  desire  for  independence;  they  merely  wanted  a 
native  parliament  such  as  twenty-eighl  different  parts  of  the  Em- 
pire already  had  ;  in  this  demand  they  had  the  moral  support  of 
the  self-governing  colonies  and,  in  general,  of  the  English  speak- 
ing world  beyond  seas.  (4)  The  present  system  was  expensive 
and  extravagant,  the  per  capita  cosl  of  administration  in  Ireland 
being  considerably  in  excess  of  that  in  the  other  parts  of  the  United 
Kingdom,  and  constituting  a  heavy  drain  on  a  poor  country. 
(5)  This  present  system  was  not  responsible  cabinet  government, 
such  as  is  the  glory  of  the  British  constitution,  but  government 
by  agencies  —  a  parliament  at  Westminster  in  whose  more  im- 
portant branch  Irish  representatives  were  outnumbered  more  t  han 
five  to  one  and  an  executive  and  administrative  service  comprising 
essentially  an  alien  governing  class  —  over  which  Irish  opinion 
could  have  no  certain  control.  (6)  Even  under  the  existing 
regime,  Ireland  required  a  large  amount  of  separate  legislation, 
and  it  would  be  better  if  all  legislative  work  relating  exclusively 
to  Irish  affairs  was  in  the  hands  of  a  local  parliament  composed 
of  men  familiar  with  Irish  conditions.  (7)  Parliament  at  West- 
minster labors  under  an  intolerable  congestion  of  business. 
Relief  through  some  form  of  devolution  is  becoming  a  practical 
necessity,  and  the  establishment  of  a  separate  parliament  for 
Ireland  would  be  a  logical  beginning.  Only  in  such  a  parlia- 
ment would  long-neglected  Irish  questions  —  education,  housing, 
poor  relief,  railways,  and  the  like  —  receive  proper  attention. 
(8)  In  the  domain  of  local  government,  where  control  was  trans- 
ferred in  1898  from  the  landlords  to  the  masses,  the  results  have 
been  excellent  and  the  Irish  have  fully  proved  their  legislative 
and  administrative  capacity.  (9)  The  bulk  of  Ireland's  popu- 
lation would  never  cease  from  agitation  or  be  truly  loyal  until 
Home  Rule  was  granted  ;  so  that  the  only  alternative  was  coer- 
cion, with  all  the  unpleasant  consequences  that  that  course  en- 
tails. 

Similarly   summarized,    the   main   arguments   against   Home 

1  See  p.  .-'92. 


THE   MINOR   PARTIES  289 

Rule  were:    (1)  Home  Rule  never  became  popular  in  Ireland 
until  it  was  linked  up  with  the  agrarian  agitation,  and  then  only 
because  the  people  were  made  to  believe  that  they  could  not  get 
land  until  they  had  Home  Rule.     The  land  question  being  prac- 
tically settled,  little  enthusiasm  for  Home  Rule,  as  such,  sur- 
vived, —  as  was  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  the  Nationalist  party 
was  supported  largely  by  donations  from  Irish-Americans.     The 
movement  was  kept  alive  principally  by  passion-driven  agitators, 
and  especially  by  politicians  who  hoped  to  govern  the  country 
if  a  Home  Rule  bill  was    passed.     (2)  The   logical  aim  of  all 
nationalism  is  independence,  and  while  the  Nationalist  leaders 
now  denied  that  they  wanted  separation,  a  Home  Rule  bill  would 
be  considered  a  step  in  this  direction,  and  hence  a  beginning  of 
the  disruption  of  the  Empire.     (3)'  There  is  no  true  analogy  be- 
tween Ireland  and  the  colonies.     The  latter  were  given  separate 
governmental  systems  for  geographical  reasons  which  do  not 
apply  to  Ireland.     They  are  not  represented  in  the  Imperial  par- 
liament, whereas  Ireland  is.     Furthermore,  they  are  not  insepa- 
rably bound  up  with  Great  Britain  in  their  finances  and  in  their 
systems  of  defense  as  is  Ireland.     (4)  If  Ireland  was  not  "  self- 
governing,"  neither  was  Wales,  nor  Scotland,  nor  England  it- 
self.    Objectionable  measures  could  be  forced  on  any  of  these 
divisions  of  the  country  with  the  aid  of  Irish  votes  at  West- 
minster.    (5)  The  economic  redemption  of  the  Irish  peasantry 
had  been  largely  accomplished  under  the  present  system,  espe- 
cially through  huge  appropriations  for  the  purchase  of  land  by  the 
tenants,  to  whom  loans  were  made  for  long  periods  at  low  rates 
of  interest ;  and  if  Irish  administration  seemed  unduly  expensive, 
it  was  because  of  the  special  attention  which  the  Imperial  parlia- 
ment had  been  giving  to  improving  Irish  economic  conditions. 
(6)  The  question  had  never  —  at  all  events  since  1892  —  been 
put  squarely  before  the  people  of  the  United  Kingdom  at  a  gen- 
eral election,  and  there  was  no  ground  for  assuming  that  a  majority 
was  in  sympathy  with  the  proposed  legislation.     (7)  It  had  al- 
ways proved  impossible  for  Home  Rulers  to  work  out  a  scheme 
not  open  to  serious  and  admitted  objections  from  one  quarter 
or  another.     (8)  An  insuperable  difficulty  arose  from  the  division 
of  feeling  within  Ireland  itself  —  not  only  the  opposition  of  the 
majority  of  business  and  professional  people,  but  especially  the 
active  hostility  of    the  large    Protestant,   Unionist,   industrial 
element  in  northeastern  Ulster  which  was  convinced  that,  no 
matter  what  safeguards  were  set  up,  it  would  continually  suffer 
from  economic  and  relisrious  discrimination  at  the  hands  of  a 


290  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

predominantly  Catholic,  agricultural  Irish  parliament, 
in  the  great  sea  wars  of  the  past  Ireland  has  always  been  re- 
garded by  the  enemy  as  providing  the  base  for  a  flank  attack  upon 
England.  With  Ireland  independent,  or  even  in  such  control 
of  its  own  affairs  as  Home  Rule  would  involve,  the  difficulties 
and  cost  of  Britain's  naval  defense  would  be  vastly  increased. 
For  strategic  purposes,  the  British  [sles  form  an  indivisible  group, 
and  50  long  as  international  rivalries  and  war-  persisl  no  read- 
justments of  constitutional  relations  ran  be  made  that  do  not 
start  from  this  fundamental  fact.1 

The  Home  Rule  Bill  of  1912.  Under  the  Home  Rule  Bill 
introduced  by  Mr.  Asquith  there  was  to  be,  as  the  unsuccessful 
bills  of  1886  and  [893  had  provided,  an  Irish  parliament,  consist- 
ing of  two  houses,  which  should  meet  at  least  once  a  year  and 
should  make  all  laws  pertaining  exclusively  to  Irish  affairs  and 
exercise  a  general  control  over  Irish  administration.  The  House 
of  Commons  was  to  consist  of  164  members  chosen  for  a  maximum 
of  five  years  in  the  same  way  that  members  of  the  lower  house 
were  then  elected  throughout  the  United  Kingdom  ;  although  af- 
ter three  years  the  franchise  and  mode  of  election  might  be 
altered  and  a  redistribution  of  seats,  not  changing  the  total  num- 
ber, might  be  made  by  the  Irish  parliament.  The  upper  house, 
or  Senate,  was  to  consist  of  40  members,  with  a  fixed  term  of 
eight  year-;  and  whereas  the  first  idea  was  that  the  senators 
should  be  appointed  by  the  Lord  Lieutenant  with  the  advice  of 
the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council  of  Ireland,  the 
bill  was  amended  to  provide  for  popular  election,  by  provinces, 
under  a  system  of  proportional  representation.  The  Lord  Lieu- 
tenant, representing  the  king,  was  to  continue  as  the  chief  exec- 
utive. But  he  was  to  act  only  on  the  advice  of  the  Executive 
Committee,  composed  of  the  heads  of  the  Irish  departments, 
who  were  to  be  responsible,  singly  and  collectively,  to  the  Crist 
House  of  Commons;    in  other  words,   Ireland  was  for  the  first 

'The  arguments  for  Home  Rule  arc  cogently  presented  in  J.  McCarthy,  The 
Case  for  Hoi  tiatto,  1887);   S.  Gwynn,  /      l  or  Home  Rub  (Dublin, 

iqii);  B.  Williams  [ed.],  Home  Ride  Problems  (London,  19]  1  ; ;  and  S.  <).  Hobson, 
Irish  Home  Ride  (London,  [91  of  charming  literary  quality, 

but  representing  the  ardor  of  Erish  nationalism  rather  than  the  critical  handling 

of  materials,  are  A.  S.  Green,  Irish  Nationality  (London,  u and  F.  Hackett, 

Ireland:  a  Study  in  Nationalism  (New  York,  1918).  Tin-  classic  constitutional 
arguments  opposed  to  Home  Rule  arc  A.  \  .  Dicey,  England  ainst  Home 

Rule  (Londoi  ind    1  Leap  in  the  Dark  (London,  [893,  newed.  1911).    The 

general  arguments  in  opposition  arc  set  forth  in  I'.  Kerr-Smiley,  The  Peril  of  Home 
Ride  (London,  1911);  S.  Rosenbaum  [ed.],  A  ainst  Home  Ride:  the  Case  for  the 
i')iio>i  (London,  [912);   and  A.  \Y.  Samuels,  Home  Ride  Finance  (Dublin,  1912). 


THE   MINOR   PARTIES  291 

time  to  have  a  real  cabinet  system.  Like  the  bill  of  1893,  and 
unlike  that  of  1886,  Ireland  was  to  retain  representation  in  the 
House  of  Commons  at  Westminster,  her  quota  being  reduced, 
however,  from  103  to  42.  The  constituencies  for  these  represen- 
tatives were  to  be  formed  by  merging  boroughs  and  counties 
and  disfranchising  the  universities. 

It  was  specially  stipulated  that  "  the  supreme  power  and  au- 
thority of  the  Parliament  of  the  United  Kingdom  "  should  "  re- 
main unaffected  and  undiminished  over  all  persons,  matters,  and 
things  "  in  Ireland.  Furthermore,  the  power  of  the  Irish 
parliament  "  to  make  laws  for  the  peace,  order,  and  good  govern- 
ment of  Ireland  "  was  limited  by  the  requirement  (1)  that  the 
body  should  not  have  power  to  make  laws  "  except  in  respect  of 
matters  exclusively  relating  to  Ireland  or  some  part  thereof," 
and  (2)  that  it  should  not  legislate  at  all  on  war  or  peace,  the 
army,  the  navy,  extradition,  treason,  naturalization,  navigation, 
foreign  trade,  coinage,  weights  and  measures,  trade  marks,  copy- 
rights, patents,  the  collection  of  taxes,  the  constabulary,  the  old 
age  pension  acts,  and  various  other  "  reserved  "  subjects.  All 
bills  were  to  be  subject  to  the  royal  veto,  exercised  through  the 
Lord  Lieutenant.1  A  section  of  the  measure  to  which  much 
importance  was  attached  forbade  the  Irish  Parliament  to  "make 
a  law  so  as  either  directly  or  indirectly  to  establish  or  endow  any 
religion,  or  prohibit  the  free  exercise  thereof,  or  give  a  preference, 
privilege,  or  advantage,  or  impose  any  disability  or  disadvantage, 
on  account  of  religious  belief  or  religious  or  ecclesiastical  status 
.  .  .  .  "  Long  and  complicated  sections  of  the  bill  undertook 
to  define  the  new  financial  arrangements  between  the  two  coun- 
tries. In  general,  Ireland  was  to  levy  her  own  taxes ;  but  for  a 
time,  at  all  events,  they  were  to  be  collected  by  the  Imperial 
Treasury  and  paid  into  the  Imperial  Exchequer. 

The  measure  was  supported  by  the  Liberals,  by  the  Labor 
party  (which  cared  little  for  Home  Rule  as  such,  but  wanted  the 
question  settled  so  that  social  and  industrial  problems  might 
again  receive  systematic  attention),  and  by  the  bulk  of  the  Na- 
tionalists under  the  leadership  of  Mr.  Redmond,  although  a 
small  group  of  Independent  Nationalists,  led  by  Mr.   William 

1  The  effect  of  the  constitutional  controversies  of  1909-n  is  seen  in  the  provision 
that  the  Senate  should  not  reject  any  bill  dealing  only  with  "the  imposition  of 
taxation  or  appropriation  of  revenue  or  money  for  the  services  of  the  Irish  govern- 
ment," and  also  in  the  provision  that  if  the  House  of  Commons  should  twice  pass, 
and  the  Senate  twice  reject,  any  bill  in  successive  sessions,  the  two  houses  might  be 
convoked  in  joint  session  by  the  Lord  Lieutenant  with  a  view  to  making  final 
disposal  of  the  measure  by  majority  vote. 


GOVERNMEN  rS   01    El  ROPE 

O'Brien,  opposed  the  bill  because  of  certain  of  its  provisions, 
relating  chiefly  to  finance.  Conservative  opposition  was,  if 
possible,  more  hitter  than  in  [886  and  [893,  and  on  the  same 
principal  grounds,  namely,  that  the  measure  would  lead  to  the 
persecution  of  the  Protestant  minority  in  Ireland  and  to  the 
disruption  of  the  Empire.  The  mosl  determined  and  spectacular 
resistance  came  from  the  Protestant,  Unionist  portions  of  the 
province  of  Ulster. 

The  Bill  before  Parliament  and  the  Country :  the  Ulster 
Protest.  Ulster  became  the  seal  of  a  considerable  Protestant 
population  in  the  early  seventeenth  century,  when  the  subjuga- 
tion of  the  north  was  completed  by  wholesale  confiscations  of 
Irish  lands  and  by  the  settlement  there  of  a  hardy  race  of  emi- 
grants from  the  adjacent  portions  of  England  and  Scotland. 
Thenceforth  there  were  in  the  island,  asa  recent  writer  has  -a:<\. 
two  separate  entities,  almost  two  separate  nationalities.  "One 
was  largely  Celtic,  Catholic,  politically  backward,  and  economi- 
cally depressed,  ignorant,  poor,  exploited  by  aliens,  with  hopeless 
outlook  and  fierce  hatred  for  the  dcspoiler.  The  other  was 
Anglo-Saxon  and  Protestant,  Episcopalian,  Presbyterian,  and 
dissenter,  large  proprietors  or  substantial  artisans  or  farmers, 
under  British  authority  ruling,  or  allied  with  the  ruling  class, 
always  proud,  sometimes  prosperous  and  successful."1  The 
liberalized  policy  of  the  English  government  in  the  nineteenth 
century  brought  substantial  improvement  to  both  parts  of  the 
country.  But  Ulster  —  especially  the  highly  industrialized 
sections  around  Belfast —  was  drawn  by  its  economic  as  well  as 
by  its  racial  interests  into  closer  relations  with  England,  while 
the  remaining  provinces  moved  rather  in  the  opposite  direction  ; 
and  the  religious  and  cultural  differences  were  in  no  degree  amel- 
iorated. 

From  the  earliest  mention  of  Home  Rule,  the  Protestants  of 
Ulster  were  apprehensive  and  hostile.  They  opposed  the  bill 
of  1886,  and  in  1893  they  resolved  in  convention  to  refuse  to 
recognize  the  authority  of  an  Irish  parliament  if  one  was  ever 
set  up.  When  therefore,  in  191  1 ,  the  Asquith  government  made 
known  its  intention  to  introduce  a  new  bill  on  the  subject,  the 
Ulstermen  under  the  leadership  of  Sir  Edward  Carson  forthwith 
began  to  organize  opposition  and  to  declare  that  they  were  pre- 
pared logo  to  extreme  lengths,  if  necessary,  to  avoid  subjection 
to  a  Catholic  parliament  even  to  the  setting  up  of  a  separate 
provisional  government.     Advocates  of  Home  Rule  did  not  fail 

1  Turner,  Ireland  and  England,  294. 


THE   MINOR  PARTIES  293 

to  point  out  that  in  four,  and  possibly  five,  of  the  nine  counties 
composing  the  province  Home  Rulers  were  in  a  majority ; 1 
and  that  the  census  of  191 1  showed  that,  in  the  province  as  a 
whole,  the  Protestants  of  all  denominations  outnumbered 
Catholics  by  rather  less  than  200,000  ;2  and  they  urged  that  the 
fears  of  the  Ulster  men  were  the  product  of  ancient  prejudice 
rather  than  of  honest  study  of  the  proposed  legislation.  But 
the  dissentients  insisted  none  the  less  emphatically  that  under 
any  scheme  of  separate  government  for  Ireland  they  were  in 
danger  of  economic  subjection  and  religious  oppression.  Coun- 
tenanced, and  even  openly  encouraged,  by  the  Unionists  in  Eng- 
land (who  held  that  this  was  no  ordinary  political  issue,  to  be 
decided  entirely  by  the  votes  taken  at  Westminster),  they  held 
excited  mass  meetings,  signed  covenants  never  to  submit  to  an 
Irish  parliament,  drew  up  plans  for  a  provisional  government, 
and  made  active  preparations  for  a  war  of  resistance. 

It  is  impossible  to  narrate  here  the  dramatic  events,  or  to 
describe  the  anxiety  of  patriotic  men  of  all  parties,  during  the 
two  and  one  half  years  following  the  first  appearance  of  the 
Government's  bill.  Confident  of  the  righteousness  of  its  policy, 
the  ministry  allowed  no  amount  of  threats,  or  of  armed  prepara- 
tions, to  turn  it  from  its  purpose  —  not  even  when  the  Unionist 
leader,  Bonar  Law,  solemnly  declared  that  if  the  Ulstermen  were 
forced  into  open  defiance  of  a  measure  passed  under  the  Parlia- 
ment Act  without  farther  appeal  to  the  electorate,  and  by  the 
dictation  of  a  Nationalist  vote  which  in  the  Unionist  view  had 
always  been  disloyal  to  the  Empire,  any  attempt  to  coerce  Ulster 
could  only  mean  civil  war,  and  a  war  that  could  not  be  confined 
to  Ireland.  Twice  in  the  early  months  of  19 13  the  bill  was  passed 
by  the  House  of  Commons,  and  each  time  it  was  promptly  and 
overwhelmingly  rejected  by  the  House  of  Lords.3  The  Unionists 
repeatedly  challenged  the  Government  to  submit  the  question  to 
the  people  at  a  general  election,  or  in  lieu  of  that,  to  make  pro- 
vision for  a  referendum  on  this  single  issue.     The  reply  was  that 

1  The  counties  of  Ulster,  Armagh,  Antrim,  and  Down  are  overwhelmingly  Union- 
ist; Cavan  and  Donegal  are  overwhelmingly  Nationalist;  Derry,  Fermanagh, 
Monaghan,  and  Tyrone  are  more  evenly  divided. 

2  Protestants,  almost  900,000 ;  Catholics,  700,000.  Ulster's  thirty-one  repre- 
sentatives in  the  House  of  Commons  after  the  general  elections  of  December,  1910, 
included  sixteen  Unionists,  thirteen  Nationalists,  one  Independent  Nationalist, 
and  one  Liberal. 

3  Passed  by  the  House  of  Commons  (367  to  257)  January  16,  and  rejected  by 
the  House  of  Lords  on  the  second  reading  (369  to  69)  January  30.  Passed  again 
by  the  lower  house  (352  to  243)  July  7,  and  rejected  by  the  upper  chamber  (302  to 
64)  July  15. 


2Q4  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

the  question  had  already  been  submitted.  Conferences  between 
representatives  of  the  two  major  parlies  came  to  naught;  the 
Nationalists  reiterated  their  determination  to  accept  no  com- 
promise;  and  on  March  5.  [914,  the  bill  was  introduced  for  the 
third  time.  Four  days  later,  however,  Mr.  Asquith  came  for- 
ward with  a  compromise,  similar  to  one  proposed  by  Mr.  Cliam- 
berlain  in  1886.  The  plan  was  to  exempl  tin-  counties  of  Ulster 
—  in  so  far  as  they  should  by  a  referendum  demand  it  -  from  the 
operation  of  Home  Rule,  for  a  period  of  sis  year-,  whereupon  they 
should  automatically  come  under  the  terms  of  the  act.  The 
Unionists  and  Ulstermen  disliked  the  scheme,  because  of  the  rigid 
time  limit ;  although  Unionist  opposition  was  somewhat  mollified 
by  the  intimation  from  Liberal  quarters  that  before  the  end  of 
the  six-year  period  some  scheme  of  federal  government  for  the 
entire  kingdom  might  enable  Ulster  to  secure  permanent  auton- 
omy. On  the  other  hand,  the  Nationalists  roundly  opposed  any 
division  of  the  country,  and  especially  one  which  would  detach 
the  counties  of  largest  tax-paying  capacity. 

On  May  21  the  premier  announced  the  Government's  intention 
to  introduce  an  Amending  Bill  which  would  to  some  extent  mod- 
ify the  main  measure  before  it  was  put  into  effect ;  and  four  days 
later  the  Home  Rule  Bill  passed  its  third  reading  in  the  House 
of  Commons  by  a  vote  of  351  to  274.  Manifestly,  Home  Rule  was 
about  to  become  law,  under  the  terms  of  the  Parliament  Act, 
without  the  assent  of,  and  against  the  will  of,  the  upper  chamber. 
The  Amending  Bill,  introduced  in  the  House  of  Lords,  June  23, 
embodied  the  premier's  proposals  of  March  9 ;  and  the  issue 
shifted  to  the  principle  and  the  details  of  exclusion.  On  July 
21 — when  thirty  thousand  Ulster  Volunteers  were  drilling  by 
day  and  night,  and  in  the  south  the  Nationalist  Volunteers  were 
putting  still  larger  numbers  of  men  into  the  field  to  resist  the 
segregation  of  the  Ulster  provinces  the  king  took  the  unusual 
step  of  calling  the  Liberal,  Unionist,  and  Nationalist  leaders 
into  conference  at  Buckingham  Palace,  in  the  hope  that  some 
agreement  might  be  reached  ;  but  the  meeting  proved  fruitless. 
Meanwhile  the  House  of  Lords  had  passed  the  Amending  Bill  in 
such  a  form  as  to  exclude  all  Ulster  indefinitely  from  the  opera- 
tion of  Home  Rule.  The  altered  measure  then  went  to  the  House 
of  Commons  and  was  under  consideration  there  when,  suddenly, 
the  political  scene  was  completely  changed  by  the  outbreak  of 
the  Great  War.  Political  animosities  were  buried  overnight, 
and  Parliament  turned  its  attention  to  legislation  deemed  im- 
mediately  necessary,   leaving  ultimate  settlements   to  a  more 


THE   MINOR   PARTIES  295 

favorable  day.  As  to  Ireland,  the  Amending  Bill  was  dropped 
and  the  Government,  declaring  that  it  would  never  impose 
Home  Rule  on  Ulster  by  force,  promised  that  the  Home  Rule 
Act  should  not  take  effect  for  a  year  (or  until  the  end  of  the  war) , 
and  pledged  the  passage  meanwhile  of  some  kind  of  amending 
measure.  Amid  dramatic  scenes,  this  program  was  accepted 
in  both  houses;  and  on  September  17,  1914,  the  long-waited 
Government  of  Ireland  Act  received  the  royal  assent.1 

1  On  the  Irish  question  since  1014  see  pp.  316-324.  The  Home  Rule  Bill  of  1912 
is  discussed  in  W.  T.  Laprade,  "Present  Status  of  the  Home  Rule  Question,"  in 
Amer.  Polil.  Sci.  Rev.,  Nov.,  1912,  and  H.  Spender,  Home  Rule  (London,  1912). 
The  position  of  Ulster  is  described  in  Turner,  Ireland  and  England,  293-311.  For 
an  able  Unionist  exposition  see  E.  W.  Hamilton,  The  Soul  of  Ulster  (New  York, 
1917).  Among  useful  articles  are  E.  Childers,  "Home  Rule  in  Parliament,"  in 
Contemp.  Rev.,  Dec,  1912;  and  A.  G.  Porritt,  "The  Irish  Home  Rule  Bill,"  in 
Polil.  Sci.  Quar.,  June,  1913. 


CHAPTER    XVII 

MISCELLANEOUS    PARTY    ISSUES 

Constitutional  Questions.  -  Leaving  out  of  account  questions 
pertaining  to  foreign  relations  and  to  the  armed  forces  of  the 
nation,  which  in  the  main  are  discussed  and  decided  on  a  non- 
partisan basis,  three  groups  of  issues  chiefly  furnished  fuel  for 
controversy  between  the  major  parties  during  the  decade  preced- 
ing the  war.  The  first  consisted  of  questions  of  a  constitutional 
nature;  the  second,  of  questions  of  an  economic  character;  and 
the  third,  of  questions  of  a  broadly  social  bearing.  Few,  if  any,  of 
the  issues  to  be  mentioned  under  these  heads  have  been  settled. 
The  war  crowded  some  out  of  the  public  attention ;  it  increased 
the  urgency  of  others;  all  will  loom  up  again,  perhaps  [in  new 
guises,  but  demanding  —  along  with  the  scores  of  intricate  prob- 
lems raised  by  the  war  itself  —  thoughtful  consideration  and 
candid  discussion  by  the  leaders  and  members  of  all  party  groups. 

Of  constitutional  questions,  three  of  chief  importance  have 
already  been  duly  considered,  namely,  the  reform  of  the  House 
of  Lords,1  the  reconstruction  of  the  electoral  system,2  and  Irish 
Home  Rule.3  The  first  has  been  preeminently  a  party  question. 
The  impetus  of  the  reform  movement  was  supplied  by  the  desire 
of  the  Liberals  to  end  the  intolerable  situation  caused  by  the 
perpetual  dominance  of  the  upper  chamber  by  the  Unionists. 
The  Unionists  themselves,  perceiving  that  changes  were  inevi- 
table, proposed  various  plans  for  the  reconstitution  of  the  cham- 
ber on  a  more  popular  basis.  But  the  Liberals  preferred  to  get 
closer  to  the  root  of  the  matter  by  limiting  the  power  of  the 
House  of  Lords  to  obstruct  legislation  carried  in  the  lower  cham- 
ber. This  they  did  in  thw  Parliament  Act  of  191 1.  Circum- 
stances have  never  been  favorable  since  191 1  for  the  farther 
action  promised  by  this  measure  with  a  view  to  popularizing 
the  upper  house.  But  the  question  remains;  and,  notwith- 
standing the  agreement  of  the  parties  upon  the  general  ends  to 
be  sought,  there  is  likely  to  be  sharp  controversy  over  means 
and  methods  whenever  the  subject  is  taken  up. 

1  See  pp.  146-261.  2  See  pp.  124-139.  3  See  pp.  281-295. 

296 


MISCELLANEOUS   PARTY  ISSUES  297 

Throughout  the  decade  the  problem  of  electoral  reform  ab- 
sorbed increasing  attention.  It  was  not  wholly  a  party  question  ; 
upon  the  enfranchisement  of  women,  for  example,  neither  party 
was  able  to  take  a  clear  stand.  But  the  Liberals  were  interested 
mainly  in  manhood  suffrage  and  the  abolition  of  the  plural  vote ; 
their  opponents  talked  most  about  a  redistribution  of  seats. 
As  has  been  explained,  the  stress  of  war  unexpectedly  forced  a 
general  overhauling  of  the  electoral  system.  To  a  degree,  the 
task  was  carried  out  on  non-partisan  lines.  On  certain  matters, 
however  —  notably  a  plan  to  introduce  the  principle  of  propor- 
tional representation — party  controversy  flared  up  in  a  fashion  to 
jeopardize  the  entire  project.  This  plan  of  proportional  repre- 
sentation, to  which  the  Unionist  majority  in  the  House  of  Lords 
is  deeply  attached,  is  likely  to  become  a  leading  issue  between 
the  parties.  Even  the  suffrage  is  not  entirely  settled.  The 
National  Union  of  Woman  Suffrage  Societies  has  officially 
announced  its  purpose  to  work  for  the  lowering  of  the  age  quali- 
fication for  female  voters  in  parliamentary  elections  from  thirty 
to  twenty-one,  thus  establishing  full  equality  with  men.  Inas- 
much as  this  would  mean  that  woman  voters  would  be  in  a 
majority  throughout  the  country  by  about  two  millions,  there 
will  be  determined  opposition.  The  question  may  or  may  not 
take  on  a  party  aspect. 

Incidental  mention  has  been  made  of  the  referendum  as  a  po- 
litical issue.  In  both  parties  the  idea  has  slowly  developed  that 
Parliament  should  refrain  from  drastic  changes  in  the  govern- 
mental system  unless  it  has  a  mandate  from  the  nation  to  make 
them.  From  this  idea  it  is  but  a  step  to  the  suggestion  —  which 
was  first  offered  officially  by  Mr.  Balfour  as  leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion in  the  House  of  Commons  during  the  crises  of  1910 — that 
all  great  questions  shall  be  referred  to  the  electorate,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  and  by  some  fixed  process.  The  Unionist  party  as  a 
whole  has  never  taken  a  stand  for  the  referendum  as  applied 
to  ordinary  legislation,  but  is  firmly  committed  to  it  as  applied 
to  constitutional  questions.  Individual  Liberals  think  well  of 
the  plan;  but  the  party  as  a  whole  is  not  favorably  inclined. 
The  difference  between  the  pa'rties  on  the  point  is  perhaps  one 
of  degree  rather  than  of  principle.1 

Tariff  and  Taxation.  —  Of  economic  questions  which  became 
party  questions  in  the  decade  before  the  war,  three  were  chiefly 
important :  tariff  reform,   including  colonial  preference ;   taxa- 

1H.  W.  Horwill,  "The  Referendum  in  Great  Britain,"  in  Polit.  Sci.  Quar., 
Sept.,  1911. 


2q8  GOVERNMENTS  01     EUROPE 

tion;  and  land  refonil.  The  tariff  question  arose  out  of  a  reac- 
tion which  set  in  among  the  Unionists  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago 
against  the  prevailing  system  of  free  trade.  As  has  been  pointed 
out.  protective  tariffs  were  abolished  in  England  by  a 

measures  dating  from  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws  in  1842  41;, 
and  carried  mainly  by  the  Liberal  party.1  Some  interests  which 
stood  Longest  by  the  protective  principle  never  really  underwent 
a  change  of  heart  ;  and  toward  the  close  of  tin-  last  century  the 
dci  line  in  agricultural  prices  and  in  industrial  profits  ■  coupled 
with  the  solitariness  of  the  position  which  (in  at  Britain  as  a 
trade  nation  found  herself  occupying  -suggested  to  many 
people  that  the  free-trade  system  ought  to  be  abandoned.  As 
has  been  stated,  the  Conservative  National  Union  several  times 
passed  resolutions  at  its  annual  conferences  favorable  to  a  system 
of  preferential  tariffs,  although  without  tangible  result.2  In 
roo3,  Joseph  Chamberlain,  a  leading  member  of  the  Unionist 
cabinet,  came  out  for  a  tariff  system,  with  two  main  features: 
(1)  duties  on  imported  foodstuffs,  so  arranged  as  to  give  the 
products  of  the  British  colonies  an  advantage  in  rates  over  those 
of  foreign  countries,  and  (2)  duties  on  imported  manufactures 
to  protect  British  industries  against  the  "  unfair  competition  " 
of  foreign  industries.  Under  this  plan,  it  was  urged,  the  rich 
would  profit  by  the  reductions  of  direct  taxation  made  possible 
by  the  increase  of  revenue ;  while  the  poor,  if  they  should  be  made 
to  contribute  more  heavily  to  the  state  through  indirect  taxa- 
tion —  which,  however,  they  were  assured  would  not  be  the  case 
—  would  derive  more  than  an  offsetting  advantage  through 
more  steady  employment,  higher  wages,  and  the  old-age  pension 
laws  and  other  social  legislation  to  which  the  increase  of  rev- 
enues would  lead.  It  was  argued,  farther,  that  British  agri- 
culture, long  depressed,  would  profit  from  the  protection  given 
it,  and  that  by  adding  to  the  political  ties  already  subsisting 
between  the  colonies  and  the  mother  country  other  powerful 
ties  of  an  economic  nature,  the  security  and  perpetuity  of  the 
Empire  would  be  freshly  assured. 

The  scheme  attracted  wide  attention.  Many  of  the  cleverest 
of  the  younger  politicians  and  journalists  of  the  Unionist  party 
declared  for  it,  as  did  several  economists  of  the  first  rank.  In 
midsummer,  1903,  a  Tariff  Reform  League  began  to  flood  the 
country  with  pamphlets,  and  later  in  the  year  Mr.  Chamberlain 
returned  to  private  life  with  a  view  to  the  more  effective  prose- 
cution of  the  campaign  upon  which  he  was  now  resolved.  The 
1  See  p.  243.  2  See  p.  272. 


MISCELLANEOUS  PARTY  ISSUES  299 

cabinet  was  divided,  even  after  four  uncompromising  free- trade 
members  withdrew  from  it.  The  premier,  Mr.  Balfour,  sought 
to  assume  middle  ground  by  declaring  himself  "  a  reasonable 
free-trader  "  and  labored  hard  to  avert  the  threatened  disruption 
of  his  party.  From  October,  1903,  to  January,  1904,  Chamber- 
lain carried  on  an  exceptionally  vigorous  speaking  campaign 
in  defense  of  his  project,  and  he  succeeded  in  convincing  large 
numbers  of  hearers  in  all  sections  of  the  country.  At  the  begin- 
ning of  1904  the  Tariff  Reform  League  created  a  non-official 
Tariff  Commission  of  fifty-two  members,  which  was  instructed 
to  make  an  exhaustive  study  of  all  questions  and  conditions 
pertinent  to  the  general  problem.  After  more  than  five  years  of 
work,  this  commission  submitted  a  series  of  detailed  reports ; 
and,  while  the  entire  enterprise  was  carried  through  by  partisans 
of  the  cause,  it  has  been  generally  admitted  that  the  materials 
brought  together,  if  not  the  conclusions  reached,  are  entirely 
trustworthy.  The  commission's  findings  corroborated  the  argu- 
ments of  the  reformers,  and  its  recommendations  were  in  general 
harmony  with  Chamberlain's  proposals. 

Meanwhile  the  injection  of  the  issue  into  politics  had  pro- 
duced important  results.  The  Unionists,  both  inside  and  outside 
of  Parliament,  were  sharply  divided  upon  it,  and  Mr.  Balfour's 
government  was  never  in  a  position  to  give  the  subject  a  place 
in  its  official  program.  In  this  situation  the  Liberals  found  their 
opportunity.  Almost  unanimously  opposed  to  the  suggested 
departure,  they  eagerly  assumed  the  role  of  defenders  of  Eng- 
land's "  sacred  principle  of  free  trade  "  and  pressed  with  telling 
effect  their  appeal  to  the  working  classes  in  behalf  of  cheap 
bread.  The  tariff  reformers  denied  that  their  proposal  looked 
to  a  general  reversal  of  fiscal  policy,  but  in  the  view  of  most 
people  the  issue  was  squarely  joined  between  free  trade  and 
protection  as  national  systems.  In  December,  1905,  the  Balfour 
ministry  retired,  and  at  the  general  election  which  shortly  fol- 
lowed the  Liberal  government  of  Campbell-Bannerman  achieved 
a  victory  of  overwhelming  proportions.  From  1905  to  191 5  the 
Liberals  and  their  allies,  the  Irish  Nationalists  and  the  Laborites, 
were  continuously  in  power,  and  there  was  no  chance  for  a  pro- 
tectionist measure  to  receive  favorable  consideration  within 
official  circles.  Throughout  the  country,  however,  the  tariff 
reform  propaganda  went  on,  with  Chamberlain  (although  in  ill 
health  from  1906)  still,  until  his  death  in  1914,  its  chief  inspirer 
and  adviser ;  and  its  effectiveness  was  such  that  the  mass  of  the 
adherents  of  Unionism  were  gradually  won  over  and  the  pro- 


3oo  G0\  ERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

posals  were  fully  incorporated  in  the  program  <>f  the  party.1 
To  .1  considerable  extent,  the  readjustments  of  taxation  under- 
taken by  the  Liberals  in  the  Finance  Hill  of  i<)o<)  were  conceived 
as  an  alternative  to  tariff  reform  ;  and  it  was,  in  part  at  all  event », 
on  that  account  that  those  readjustments  encountered  the 
almosl  unanimous  opposition  of  the  protectionists.  Throughout 
the  controversies  of  rgog  -n  the  Liberals  continually  bracketed 
the  maintenance  of  free  trade  with  the  absolute  control  of  the 
I  lou^e  of  Commons  over  finance.  Hut  the  Unionists  stood  by 
protectionism  and  colonial  preference  with  substantial  unanimity. 
In  1914  it  was  still  to  be  presumed  that,  if  returned  to  power, 
they  would  make  up  their  first  budget  in  accordance  with  their 
new  -  or,  more  accurately,  their  revived  —  faith.  At  all 
events,  it  was  clear  that,  far  from  having  succeeded  in  the  effort 
to  convert  their  European  neighbors  to  free  trade,  the  English 
people  had  themselves  become  sharply  divided  upon  the  merits 
of  the  policy. 

It  has  been  remarked  by  a  leading  writer  that  the  I'nionist 
party  is  perhaps  chiefly  to  be  distinguished  from  its  leading 
rival  by  its  benevolent  attitude  toward  certain  great  interests,  of 
which  one  is  the  large  landholders.2  To  defray  the  costs  of  army 
reorganization,  naval  construction,  old  age  pensions,  public  edu- 
cation, and  other  great  enterprises,  vast  increases  of  revenue 
long  ago  became  imperative.  The  general  fact  was  recognized 
by  both  parties,  but  upon  the  mode  of  obtaining  the  additional 
money  they  were  sharply  disagreed.  The  Unionist  idea,  as  just 
stated,  was  to  tax  imports,  thereby  obtaining  revenue  while  also 
protecting  English  agriculture  and  industry.  The  Liberal  idea 
was  rather  to  employ  income  taxes  rising  in  rate  as  the  income 
grew  larger,  to  make  new  valuations  of  land  and  impose  increased 
taxes  upon  these  values  'especially  upon  unearned  increments), 
and  to  lay  heavy  imposts  upon  inheritances,  as  well  as  on  motor 
cars,  spirits,  and  other  luxuries  —  in  short,  to  throw  the  tax 

1  In  a  speech  al  Edinburgh,  January  24,  1  n      Bonar  Law,  who  succeeded  Balfour 

as  leader  of  the  Unionist  party  in  hh  1 .  dec  land  thai  the  policy  of  tariff  reform  was 
now  supported  by  the  membership  of  tin-  party  with  a  unanimity  which  never  be- 
fore had  existed,  [t  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that,  through  fear  of  the  opposition 
of  the  poorer  industrial  classes,  a  large  se<  tion  of  the  party  had  ". >  ak(  ned  on  the 
question  of  food  taxes,  and  that  in  deference  to  a  memorial  on  the  subject  presented 

to  him  by  prominent  party  members  Mr.  Law  promised  on  thi-  ion  that, 

should  the  Unionists  be  returned  to  power,  food  duties  would  not  l>,  imposed  until 
the  people  should  have  been  con  ulted  al  a  general  election.  Tin  Tariff  Reform 
Leagui  in  i  ted  thai     hUe  the  party  might  po  tod  duties  it  must  not  abandon 

them.     The  progtt  i-  surveyed  in  I,.  ('.  G.  Money,  "Tariff  Reform: 

Ten  Years  After,"  in  (  ontemp.  Rev.,  Mar.,  1913. 

2  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II,  120. 


MISCELLANEOUS  PARTY  ISSUES  301 

burden,  in  far  greater  measure  than  hitherto,  upon  the  rich,  and 
especially  upon  the  landlords.  Tn  successive  budgets,  from  1909 
to  1914,  the  Liberal  ideas  were  carried  out  extensively,  although 
not  completely ;  and  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war  the  parties  were 
as  far  apart  as  ever  upon  the  justice  and  expediency  of  what  had 
been  done.  The  Unionists  still  looked  to  customs  duties  as  a 
more  desirable  source  of  revenue.1 

Land  Reform.  —  A  closely  related  question  which  was  on  the 
point  of  becoming  an  important  party  issue  when  the  war  rele- 
gated it  to  temporary  obscurity  is  that  of  land  reform.  The 
land  situation  in  recent  decades  has  presented  many  unsatis- 
factory features :  shortly  before  the  war,  only  about  twelve  per 
cent  of  the  arable  acreage  was  cultivated  by  owners  ;  most  of  the 
remainder,  together  with  a  vast  amount  of  undeveloped  land, 
belonged  to  rich  landlords,  who  often  owned  whole  villages ;  over 
sixty  per  cent  of  the  adult  agricultural  laborers  were  receiving  less 
than  185.  ($4.50)  a  week ;  in  a  half  century  the  rural  population 
had  declined  by  more  than  a  half  million ;  although  formerly 
self-sufficing,  the  country  was  producing  not  more  than  one 
ninth  of  the  wheat  consumed  within  its  borders.  The  problems 
arising  from  this  situation  had  long  commanded  the  attention 
of  economists  and  other  thinking  men,  and  many  remedies  had 
been  suggested :  public  encouragement  of  "  allotments  "  of  land 
in  small  areas  by  proprietors  or  by  local  authorities  to  wage- 
earning  laborers ;  provision  of  "  small  holdings,"  to  be  paid  for 
by  the  occupiers  in  installments ;  extension  of  facilities  of  rural 
credit ;  development  of  technical  agricultural  education ;  exten- 
sion of  cooperative  enterprise ;  the  unionizing  of  agricultural 
laborers.  More  controversial  were  certain  other  proposals, 
especially  (1)  the  nationalization  of  the  land,  (2)  the  imposition 
'  of  protective  duties  on  imported  foodstuffs,  and  (3)  more  stringent 
rating  and  taxation  of  land  values.  The  first  of  these  proposi- 
tions, contemplating  the  total  abolition  of  the  private  ownership 
of  land,  never  became  more  than  an  academic  question  ;  although 
its  adoption,  in  whole  or  in  part,  was  advocated  not  only  by 
professed  socialists,  but  by  other  radicals,  in  both  public  and  pri- 

1  On  the  issue  of  tariff  reform  see  Jeyes,  Joseph  Chamberlain,  Chap,  xix;  C.  W. 
Boyd  [ed.],  Mr.  Chamberlain's  Speeches  (Boston,  1914),  II;  A.  C.  Pigou,  Protective 
and  Preferential  Import  Ditties  (London,  1906) ;  W.  J.  Ashley,  the  Tariff  Problem 
(2d  ed.,  London,  1910) ;  and  S.  Walter,  The  Meaning  of  Tariff  Reform  (London, 
191 1).  Chamberlain's  earlier  speeches  on  the  subject  are  brought  together  in  a 
book  entitled  Imperial  Union  and  Tariff  Reform  (London,  1903).  Cf.  C.  D.  Allin, 
"Federal  Aspects  of  Preferential  Trade  in  the  British  Empire,"  in  Amer.  Polit. 
Sci.  Rev.,  Aug.,  1918. 


302  GOVERNMEN  rs  OF   EUROPE 

vate  life.1  The  proposal  relating  to  land  values  looked  especially 
to  the  taxation  of  undeveloped  land  in  such  a  manner  that  owners 
would  be  induced  or  driven  to  throw  it  upon  the  market  and 
thereby  increase  the  opportunity  for  the  laying  out  of  small 
holding* 

In  general,  the  Unionist  idea  was  to  stimulate  agriculture  and 
raise  rural  wages  by  protective  duties  on  imported  foodstuffs, 
while  the  Liberal  plan  was  to  reach  these  ends  by  direct  and  dras- 
tic reconstruction  of  the  conditions  of  land  ownership  and  rural 
employment.  During  the  earlier  portion  of  the  Liberal  decade 
preceding  the  war,  the  Government  gave  the  subject  increasing 
attention.  A  Small  Holdings  and  Allotments  Act  of  1007 
enabled  some  thrifty  persons  to  acquire  and  gradually  pay  for 
small  tracts  of  ground,  and  the  controverted  Finance  Act  of  [010 
introduced  new  and  radical  plans  of  rating  and  taxing.  After 
iqio  the  subject  received  new  prominence,  especially  at  the 
hands  of  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  Mr.  Lloyd  George. 
In  191 2  a  semi-official  Land  Enquiry  Committee  was  assigned 
the  task  of  investigating  wages,  hours,  housing,  game  laws, 
allotments,  and  conditions  of  land  purchase  and  tenure ;  and  in 
October,  1913,  this  "  Acland  Committee  "  submitted  an  exten- 
sive report  on  rural  land  conditions.2  Taking  as  a  basis  the  data 
thus  brought  to  light,  Lloyd  George  formulated  a  program  of 
reform  directed  to  two  main  ends:  (1)  the  betterment  of  the 
living  conditions  of  the  rural  population ;  and  (2)  the  increase  of 
agricultural  production.  The  first  was  to  be  attained  by  direct 
and  immediate  action,  the  second  more  slowly  and  perhaps 
largely  as  a  consequence  of  the  amelioration  of  rural  labor  con- 
ditions. #In  the  first  place,  it  was  proposed  to  establish  a  new 
ministry  —  a  Ministry  of  Lands  —  to  have  jurisdiction  in  all 
matters  pertaining  to  both  rural  and  urban  lands.3  Under  the 
Minister  of  Lands  local  commissions  were  to  be  set  up,  with  power 
to  purchase  (at  prices  determined  by  themselves)  land  needed  for 
small  holdings,  reclamation,  and  afforestation,  and  with  power, 
also,  to  inquire  into  evictions,  to  compel  compensation  for  im- 
provements, and,  under  certain  conditions,  to  fix  rents.  In  the 
second  place,  it  was  proposed,  in  accordance  with  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  Acland  Committee,  to  give  the  agricultural 
laborer  the  protection  of  a  minimum  wage  law,  the  minimum 

1  The  plan  is  forcefully  defended  in  M.  Fordham,  Mother  Earth  (London,  1908). 

2  Report  of  the  Land  Enquiry  Committee,  Vol.  I,  Rural  (London,  1913),  Vol.  II, 
Urban  (London,  1914). 

3  To  the  new  ministry  were  to  be  transferred  the  functions  of  the  Board  of  Agricul- 
ture, and  of  a  number  of  other  existing  administrative  agencies . 


MISCELLANEOUS   PARTY  ISSUES  303 

wage  to  be  determined  for  different  localities  by  the  commissions. 
The  commissions  were  to  have  power,  farther,  to  regulate  the 
hours  of  labor.  Finally,  a  national  survey  of  housing  conditions 
was  to  be  instituted,  and  the  state  was  to  proceed,  using  the 
reserve  insurance  funds,  with  the  building  of  about  125,000 
cottages  which,  together  with  garden  plots,  should  be  disposed 
of  to  laborers  at  an  "  economic  rent." 

These  policies  were  given  out  as  the  product  of  prolonged 
cabinet  deliberations;  in  other  words,  they  were  promulgated 
as  a  part  of  the  general  ministerial  program.  As  such,  they  were 
attacked  by  the  Unionists,  although  opposition  centered  upon 
details  rather  than  fundamentals  and  was,  withal,  half-hearted. 
Discussion  was  cut  short  by  the  war,  but  not  until  it  had  thrown 
into  sharp  relief  the  two  rival  programs  of  agrarian  reform  — 
the  Unionist  proposal  to  improve  agriculture  by  the  taxation  of 
imported  foodstuffs  and  the  Liberal  plan  to  reach  the  same  end 
by  the  reconstruction  of  the  conditions  of  land  ownership  and  of 
rural  labor.  The  problem  promised  to  be  one  of  the  most  serious 
that  England  would  have  to  face  in  other  years ;  and  it  seemed 
likely,  whenever  taken  up  again,  to  become  a  political  issue, 
since  the  landholding  interests  are  closely  identified  with  the 
Unionist  party.1 

Social  Questions :  Status  of  the  Established  Church.  —  A 
leading  tenet  of  modern  liberalism  is  the  separation  of  church 
and  state.  The  principle  has  been  carried  completely  into  effect, 
however,  in  only  a  few  countries ;  and  Great  Britain  is  not  one 
of  them.2  The  official  connection  between  church  and  state  is 
indeed  much  less  close  in  contemporary  Britain  than  it  was  in 
former  centuries.  Yet  it  is  in  many  ways  influential  on  the 
nation's  affairs,  and  its  continuance  has  become  a  political  ques- 
tion of  considerable  interest  and  importance. 

The  Church  of  England  is  an  established  church  in  that  the 
state  recognizes  and  deals  with  it  as  the  historic  national  church 
of  the  English  people,  and  hence  as  an  integral  part  of  the  con- 
stitution of  the  realm.  The  doctrine  of  the  Church,  embodied 
in  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles,  was  formulated  by  the  ecclesiastical 

1On  the  land  problem  see  P.  Alden,  Democratic  England  (New  York,  191 2), 
238-263;  G.  Parker,  The  Land,  the  People,  and  the  State  (London,  1911) ;  A.  H.  II. 
Mathews,  Fifty  Years  of  Agricultural  Politics  (London,  1915) ;  C.  Tumor,  The  Land 
and  the  Empire  (London,  1916) ;  J.  Codings,  Land  Reform  (London,  1906) ;  W.  H. 
R.  Curtler,  Short  History  of  English  Agriculture  (Oxford,  1909);  W.  R.  D.  Adkins, 
"Liberalism  and  the  Land,"  in  Contemp.  Rev.,  Apr.,  1913;  B.  S.  Rowntree, 
"Rural  Land  Reform,"  ibid.,  Nov.,  1913. 

2  It  is  to  be  remarked,  however,  that  there  is  no  longer  an  established  church 
in  any  of  the  British  self-governing  dominions. 


3°4 


GOVERNMEN  l>   OF    EUROP1 


assemblage  known  as  Convocation,  but  was  '/wen  final  authority 
bj  act  of  Parliament  in  1671.  Similarly,  the  Prayer  Hook,  con- 
taining the  ritual,  was  adopted  by  the  Act  of  Uniformity  of  1662  ; 
and  no  change  e;;u  be  made  in  either  doctrine  or  ritual  except  by 
statute.  Organization,  also,  is  determined,  or  confirmed,  by  the 
state.  Thus,  acts  of  Parliament  formerly  specified  that  England 
and  Wales  should  be  divided  into  the  two  provinces  of  Canter- 
bury and  York,  each  presided  over  by  an  archbishop,  and  that 
>ne  should  contain  twenty-seven  sees  and  the  other  ten. 
.V  t-  of  Parliament —  the  Welsh  Church  Acts  which  took  effect 
March  31,  1920  —  also  withdrew-  from  the  province  of  Canter- 
bury the  whole  of  Wales  and  Monmouthshire,  leaving  but  twenty- 
three  sees  in  the  southern  province.1  Furthermore,  the  clergy 
are  appointed,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  the  government.  In 
form,  a  bishop  or  archbishop  is  still  elected  by  the  dean  and 
canons  of  the  cathedral  (or  bishop's)  church ;  but  the  conge 
d'clirc  from  the  crown,  which  authorizes  the  election,  is  accom- 
panied by  a  "  letter  missive  "  designating  the  person  to  be  chosen. 
The  appointment  is  really  made  by  the  prime  minister.  Deans 
are  commonly  appointed  in  the  same  way,  and  canons  frequently 
so.  The  archdeacons  and  rural  deans  who  assist  the  bishop  are 
usually  appointed  by  him,  and  the  parish  curate,  rector,  or 
vicar,  although  previously  ordained  to  the  priesthood  by  a 
bishop,  usually  owes  his  selection  for  a  post  to  the  crown,  the 
lord  chancellor,  a  bishop,  a  university,  or  some  other  person  or 
body,  ecclesiastical  or  lay,  that  has  acquired  the  right  to  "  present 
to  the  living."  2 

The  Church,  therefore,  is  in  the  curious  position  of  an  organ- 
ization that  does  not  determine  its  own  doctrine,  make  and  re- 
vise its  own  ritual,  fix  its  own  structure  and  form  of  government, 
or  even  select  its  own  officers.  It  is  not  even  a  body  corporate, 
and  hence  cannot,  as  an  organization,  hold  property  —  although 
it  contains  any  number  of  corporate  bodies  with  full  property- 
owning  powers.  In  the  Convocations  of  Canterbury  and  York, 
it  has  two  quasi-legislative  bodies;  but  they  can  do  nothing  of 
importance  without  the  consent  of  the  crown  or  of  Parliament 
or  both.3     There  are  still  bishops'  and  archbishops'  courts;   but 

^eep.  25S.    The  archbishop  in  each  case  has  charge  of  a  see;  so  that  the  Dumber 

of  bishops  in  the  two  provini  es  1  .  respei  lively,  twenty-two  and  nine. 

-  I  tie  right  to  presenl  to  the  living  is  legall)  termed  an  "advowson."     See  Lowell, 

rnment  of  England,  II,  365-367. 
8  The  powers  of  th  Convocation    an  1  gulated  by  the  Act  for  the  Submission  of 

the  Cli  a  I  in  1533.     Each  body  consists  of  two  houses.     The  upper  contains 

hops;   the  lower  is  made  up  of  the  deans,  together  with  cer- 
tain proctors  and  other  leaser  representatives. 


MISCELLANEOUS   PARTY   ISSUES  305 

their  earlier  jurisdiction  over  matrimonial  and  probate  cases 
was  long  ago  lost  to  the  secular  tribunals  and  their  theoretical 
right  to  excommunicate,  and  even  imprison,  laity  as  well  as 
clergy  for  certain  ecclesiastical  offenses  is,  in  fact,  never  exer- 
cised. 

The  financial  support  of  the  Church  is  drawn  from  three 
principal  sources:  rents,  tithes,  and  voluntary  offerings.  In 
one  way  or  another,  large  quantities  of  land  have  passed  into 
the  hands  of  the  various  ecclesiastical  officers  and  bodies,  whose 
tenure  is,  in  most  cases,  perpetual.  The  rents  and  other  rev- 
enues go  mainly  to  the  support  of  the  appropriate  bishops,  deans, 
canons,  rectors,  or  vicars.  The  parish  clergy  derive  by  far  the 
larger  part  of  their  income  from  tithes,  which,  by  a  long  series  of 
developments,  have  come  to  be  rent  charges  apportioned  upon 
all  the  lands  liable  in  the  parish  and  computed  on  the  difference 
between  the  average  price  of  wheat,  barley,  and  oats  in  the  seven 
years  preceding  the  levy  and  the  price  of  those  commodities  in 
the  first  year  after  the  passing  of  the  Tithe  Commutation  Act  of 
1836.  It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  not  all  of  the  revenue 
from  tithes  goes  to  the  clergy;  and  in  the  opinion  of  impartial 
writers  the  tithes  themselves  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  state  tax 
for  the  support  of  religion.1  The  Church  no  longer  receives 
national  subsidies  at  the  hand  of  Parliament;  speaking  broadly, 
it  is  not  supported  by  taxation  at  all. 

The  Question  of  Disestablishment.  —  Much  controversy  has 
centered  around  the  Church  and  its  privileges  in  past  centuries, 
and  a  demand  has  often  been  made  for  disestablishment.  In 
recent  times  the  change  has  been  advocated  by  certain  high- 
church  elements  that  would  prefer  to  get  the  Church  out  from 
under  state  control.  In  the  main,  however,  the  plan  is  urged 
by  the  Congregationalists,  Baptists,  Presbyterians,  Quakers, 
Methodists,  and  other  Nonconformist  bodies,  which,  shortly 
before  the  opening  of  the  present  century,  drew  together  in  a 
Free  Church  Federation  pledged  to  uphold  the  interests  of  the 
Dissenters  as  against  the  Established  Church  and  to  support  a 
general  program  of  disestablishment.  The  arguments  for  dis- 
establishment 2  run  somewhat  as  follows :  (1)  the  privileged 
position  of  the  Established  Church  is  unjust  to  other  religious 
communities,  which  in  the  aggregate  count  practically  as  many 

1  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II,  375. 

2  Theoretically,  the  question  of  disestablishment  is  separable  from  thatof  dis- 
endovvment.  But  if  the  one  change  were  made  it  would  almost  certainly  involve 
the  other. 


306  GOVERNMEN  I  S  OF   EUROPE 

adherents  as  the  Established  Church;  (2)  the  endowments  of  the 
Established  Church  arc  historically  national  property,  whose 
yield  of  six  million  pounds  a  year  ought  to  be  sel  free  for  national 
purposes ;  (3)  the  inclusion  of  the  bishops  in  the  House  of  Lords, 
and  the  monopoly  of  public  honors  enjoyed  by  the  Anglican 
clergy,  is  unfair  to  the  clergy  of  other  denominations;  (4)  estab- 
lishment maintains  in  existence  a  class  which,  being  itself  priv- 
ileged, is  the  natural  ally  of  privilege  and  monopoly,  and  an 
obstacle  to  political  and  social  reform;  (5)  disestablishment 
would  remove  a  barrier  to  the  cordial  cooperation  of  religious 
bodies  in  the  interest  of  moral  and  social  progress;  and  (6)  liber- 
ation from  state  control  would  give  the  Church  new  vigor  and 
spirit.  On  the  other  side  it  is  urged  (1)  that  disestablishment 
would  lead  to  disendowment,  and  disendowment  is  pure  con- 
fiscation, since  the  property  of  the  Church  is  not  national  prop- 
erty, but  is  trust  property,  given  to  the  Church  as  such  for  purely 
religious  purposes;  (2)  that  disendowment,  by  depriving  the 
Church  of  a  la  rue  part  of  its  income,  would  impose  limitations  upon 
its  activities,  to  the  detriment  of  the  morals  and  religious  life  of  the 
nation;  (3)  that  disestablishment  would  be  so  keenly  resented  by 
Churchmen  that  its  effect  would  not  be  to  promote  harmony 
among  religious  bodies,  but  quite  the  reverse;  (4)  that  the  pres- 
ence of  the  bishops  in  the  House  of  Lords  is  not  necessary  to  the 
continuance  of  the  Established  Church;  and  (5)  that  establish- 
ment does  not  involve  religious  inequality,  since  no  person  is 
prevented  from  following  his  own  religious  inclinations. 

As  an  organization,  the  Church  takes,  and  can  take,  little 
part  in  politics;  as  a  recent  writer  has  remarked,  the  capacity  of 
the  Church  for  corporate  action  of  any  sort  is  very  limited.  The 
Anglican  clergy,  however,  as  a  profession,  are  almost  solidly 
Unionist  in  politics,  and  they  believe  that  their  own  interests 
and  the  interests  of  the  Church  which  they  serve  are  bound  up 
absolutely  with  the  fortunes  of  the  Unionist  party.  On  the  other 
hand,  practically  all  of  the  Nonconformist  clergy,  and  most 
Nonconformist  laymen,  are  adherents  of  Liberalism;  and  the 
local  councils  of  the  Free  Church  Federation  do  not  hesitate  to 
take  an  active  part  in  both  parliamentary  and  local  electoral 
campaigns.  The  religious  basis  of  party  alignment  and  activity 
was  greatly  accentuated  by  the  Education  Act  of  1002  and  the 
controversies  1  entering  around  its  enforcement.3 

Disestablishment  in  Wales.  —  After  the  enactment  of  dises- 
tablishment and  partial  disendowment  for  Ireland  in  1869,  dis- 

1  See  p.  310. 


MISCELLANEOUS  PARTY  ISSUES  307 

establishment  as  a  party  issue  was  agitated  in  relation  chiefly  to 
Wales.  The  pre-war  Liberals  were  on  record  as  favoring  the 
disestablishment  of  Presbyterianism  in  Scotland,  and  strong 
elements  among  them  demanded  disestablishment  of  Anglicanism 
in  England.1  Wales,  however,  offered  the  best  point  of  attack, 
and  Welsh  disestablishment  figured  in  the  program  of  the  Na- 
tional Liberal  Federation  practically  from  the  beginning  of  that 
organization  in  1877.  A  bill  on  the  subject  was  before  the 
House  of  Commons  when  the  Rosebery  ministry  resigned  in  1895, 
and  another,  introduced  in  1909,  was  withdrawn  during  the 
controversy  over  the  Lloyd  George  Budget..  The  arguments 
for  the  change  have  been  principally:  (1)  the  Nonconformists 
outnumber  the  adherents  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  pro- 
portion of  three  to  one ;  (2)  the  Church  in  Wales  was  an  "  alien 
church,  out  of  touch  with  the  people,  and  not  vigorous  or  effi- 
cient;"  and  (3)  disestablishment  was  ardently  desired  by  the 
bulk  of  the  people,  one  evidence  being  the  regular  return  of  a 
majority  of  Liberal  members  to  Parliament.  The  Anglican, 
Unionist  replies  to  these  contentions  were,  chiefly :  (1)  the 
Church  in  Wales  was  the  largest  single  religious  body  in  the 
principality;2  (2)  the  Church  was  no  more  "alien"  in  Wales 
than  in  England,  having  existed  there  long  before  the  present 
relations  between  England  and  Wales  were  established ;  (3)  the 
Church  in  Wales  was  an  integral  part  of  the  general  English 
Church,  whose  vitality  would  be  impaired  by  the  change ;  (4)  in 
their  own  organizations  the  Nonconformists  do  not  recognize 
the  division  between  England  and  Wales ;  and  (5)  there  was  no 
evidence  of  an  active  general  demand  from  Wales  for  disestab- 
lishment other  than  such  as  was,  on  insufficient  grounds,  deduced 
from  the  fact  that  a  large  majority  of  her  parliamentary  repre- 
sentatives were  in  favor  of  this  policy. 

Untjl  191 1,  it  was  always  to  be  presumed  that  any  disestab- 
lishment bill  would  fail  because  of  the  hostility  of  the  Unionist 
House  of  Lords.  The  Parliament  Act,  however,  opened  up  a 
way  for  the  enactment  of  controversial  measures  without  the 
assent   of   the   upper   chamber,  and   in    191 2  the  Government 

1  In  1907  the  House  of  Commons,  stirred  by  the  rejection  of  the  Education  Bill 
of  1906  by  the  House  of  Lords,  passed  a  resolution  by  a  vote  of  198  to  90  declaring 
it  to  be  the  sense  of  the  British  nation  that  the  Church  should  be  disestablished  in 
England  as  well  as  Wales. 

2  A  royal  commission  appointed  in  1906  to  study  the  subject  reported  the  number 
of  Established  Church  communicants  at  193,081,  as  compared  with  1 75**74  Con- 
gregationalists,  170,167  Calvinistic  Methodists,  and  143,000  Baptists.  The  total 
Nonconformist  membership  was  reported  as  550,280. 


3o8  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

brought  in  a  Welsh  Disestablishment  Bill,  drawn  <>n  the  same 
lines  as  the  measures  ol  1894  ;m<l  [909.  The  Lords  took  the 
course  that  was  expected.  But  the  Mil  (pro\  iding  for  disestab- 
lishment in  the  English  county  of  Monmouth  as  well  as  in  Wales  I 
was  passed  in  the  lower  house  in  three  successive  sessions,  and 
in  1914  it  became  the  first  non-financial  measure  to  be  placed 
on  the  statute  hook  under  the  terms  of  the  Parliament  Act. 
The  question  of  disestablishment  in  England  and  Scotland  re- 
mained for  later  consideration;  and  after  prolonged  controversy 
actual  disestablishment  in  Wales  and  Monmouthshire  was  post- 
poned until  after  the  war.  Somewhat  amended  by  a  Temporali- 
ties Bill  of  1919,  the  Disestablishment  Act  took  effect  March  31, 
1920. * 

The  Education  Question.  An  issue  that  sharply  divided  the 
parties  during  the  decade  before  the  war,  and  that  drew  the 
principal  religious  bodies  deeper  into  politics  than  at  any  earlier 
time,  was  public  education.  Paradoxically,  the  education  con- 
troversy had  little  to  do  with  education  per  se  —  with  such 
questions  as  how  the  children  should  be  taught,  what  subjects 
they  should  study,  and  when  instruction  should  begin  and 
cease  —  and  still  less  with  matters  of  a  more  purely  pedagogical 
nature.  The  question  that  was,  and  still  is,  of  political  impor- 
tance was  rather  that  of  the  status,  and  especially  the  financial 
support,  of  the  great  number  of  elementary  and  secondary 
schools  operated  under  the  auspices  of  the  Established  Church  ; 
in  other  words,  it  was  merely  a  phase  of  the  conflict  between  the 
Church  and  Nonconformity. 

In  England,  as  everywhere  else,  provision  of  facilities  for  edu- 
cation was  left,  in  the  Middle  Ages  and  far  down  into  modern 
times,  to  the  Church  and  to  private  philanthropy.  Indeed, 
England  was  the  last  of  the  leading  countries  of  western  Europe 
in  which  the  state  recognized  and  accepted  responsibility  in  this 

'The  historical  development  of  the  Church  of  England  is  outlined  in  Jenks, 
Government  of  the  British  Empire,  Chap.  xii.  The  Church's  general  position  and 
organization  are  described  in  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II,  Chaps,  li-lii.  A 
good  short  history  of  tin-  Church  by  a  hi<di-churchman  is  II.  <  >.  Wakeman,  Intro- 
duction to  the  History  of  the  Church  of  England  (London,  [896).  Thei  lassii  argument 
against  disestablishment  is  Lord  Selborne,  Defence  of  the  Church  of  England  against 
Disestablishment.  The  subject  is  also  discussed  brilliantly  in  E.  A.  Freeman,  Dis- 
establishment and  Disendowment.  The  case  for  disestablishment  in  Wales  is  argued 
in  P.  W.  Wilson,  Welsh  Disestablishment  (London,  1912),  and  A.  Dell,  The  Church  in 
London,  1912).  See  also  Dean  of  Durham,  "Church  and  State  in  England," 
in  Edin.  Rot.,  Oct.,  cqi6.  The  general  problem  of  church  and  state  is  surveyed 
historically  and  philosophically  in  J.  X.  Figgis,  Churches  in  the  Modern  Stale 
(New  York,  [913),  and  the  earlier  phases  in  England  are  covered  in  H.  M. 
(Iwatkin,  Church  and  StaU  in  England  to  the  Death  of  Queen  Ann*    'London,  1917). 


MISCELLANEOUS  PARTY  ISSUES  309 

direction.  Parliamentary  grants  in  aid  of  elementary  education 
began  only  in  1833,  and  not  until  1870  was  an  effort  made  to 
meet  systematically  by  state  aid  the  glaring  deficiencies  in  the 
number,  quality,  and  distribution  of  schools.  Meanwhile  the 
provision  of  schools  was  left,  in  the  main,  to  two  great  religious 
organizations  —  the  National  Society  for  Promoting  the  Edu- 
cation of  the  Poor  in  the  Principles  of  the  Established  Church, 
founded  in  181 1,  and  its  rival,  the  Nonconformist  British  and 
Foreign  School  Society,  set  up  in  1814.  The  Forster  Education 
Act  of  1870  was  intended,  as  its  author  told  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, to  "  complete  the  voluntary  system  and  fill  up  the  gaps." 
It  divided  the  country  into  school  districts  and  required  that  in 
every  district  in  which  school  facilities  were  found  to  be  inade- 
quate, the  rate-payers  should  elect  a  school  board,  which  should 
have  power  to  establish  new  schools,  to  levy  rates  for  their  sup- 
port, and  to  compel  attendance.  In  succeeding  years,  large 
numbers  of  school  boards  were  thus  constituted,  and  many 
"  board  "  schools  were  established.  England,  therefore,  had, 
after  1870,  two  main  kinds  of  schools:  (1)  board  schools,  which 
participated  in  the  annual  parliamentary  grants,  but  were  sup- 
ported chiefly  by  local  rates  and  tuition  fees,  and  (2)  "  volun- 
tary "  schools,  which  also  shared  in  the  grants  of  Parliament, 
but  lived  mainly  by  private  beneficence,  together  with  tuition 
fees.  The  board  schools  were  under  public  control ;  the  volun- 
tary schools,  under  denominational  —  in  most  cases  Church  of 
England  —  control.  The  latter  were  entitled  to  no  support  from 
the  local  rates. 

Although  pronounced  by  John  Bright  "  the  worst  act  passed 
by  any  Liberal  government  since  1832,"  the  legislation  of  1870 
opened  a  new  era  in  the  history  of  English  education  ;  the  making 
of  school  attendance  compulsory  in  1880,  and  of  elementary 
education  free  in  1891,  logically  followed.  As  time  passed  the 
voluntary  schools,  however,  found  themselves  seriously  cramped 
for  funds  and  at  increasing  disadvantage  in  competition  with 
the  rate-supported  board  schools.  Private  benefactions  were, 
at  best,  irregular  and  uncertain,  and  under  a  system  of  "  pay- 
ment by  results  "  introduced  in  1861  the  church  schools  received, 
toward  the  close  of  the  century,  a  steadily  diminishing  share 
of  the  national  educational  subsidy.  Relief  was  sought  from 
Parliament,  and  in  1897  larger  grants  were  assured.  But  the  situ- 
ation was  not  greatly  improved,  and  agitation  was  kept  up 
until,  in  1902,  a  great  Education  Act  was  passed  with  a  view  to 
equalizing  the  financial  resources  of  the  two  classes  of  schools. 


3io  GOVERNMEN  rs   01     EUROPE 

The  measure  drew   its  impetus  mainly   from   the   Established 
Church  and  was  placed  on  the  statute  book,  under  the  Leader- 
ship of  the  Unionist  go~\  ernmenl  of  Mr.  Balfour,  by  the  "  khaki 
parliament  elected  in  1000. 

The  act  of  [902  was  not  wholly  controversial ;  the  clause  which 
abolished  the  school  boards  and  vested  the  management  of  the 
publicly  supported  schools  in  the  county,  borough,  and  district 
councils  was  not  strongly  opposed.  Bui  the  main  part  of  the  act, 
i.e.,  the  clauses  admitting  the  voluntary  schools  to  a  share  in  the 
local  rates,  stirred  party  Eeeling  as  no  piece  of  legislation  in  a 
decade.  The  act  provided,  in  brief,  that  the  councils,  as  the 
local  rate-levying  and  expending  bodies,  should  support  the  for- 
mer board  schools  and  the  voluntary  schools  alike,  so  far  as  might 
be  necessary,  out  of  the  rates ;  and  that,  whereas  the  manage- 
ment of  the  secular  schools  should  lie  with  the  school  committees 
of  the  councils,  the  denominational  schools  should  be  controlled 
by  local  committees  of  six  members,  two  representing  the  coun- 
cil and  the  other  four  the  denomination.  No  religious  instruc- 
tion distinctive  of  any  denomination  might  be  given  in  any 
"provided,"  or  former  board,  school;  and,  in  order  to  receive 
aid  from  the  rates,  the  denominational  schools  must  give  religious 
instruction  only  under  conditions  readily  permitting  pupils  to 
absent  themselves  from  it.1 

Backed  by  the  bulk  of  the  Liberal  party,  the  Nonconformists 
vigorously  opposed  the  measure.  Many  of  them  had  viewed 
with  ill-concealed  satisfaction  the  financial  difficulties  of  the 
Anglican  schools  and  had  hoped  that  these  establishments  would 
either  be  compelled  to  abandon  their  denominational  connec- 
tions or  be  squeezed  entirely  out  of  the  educational  system.  To 
such  persons  it  was  galling  to  see  these  schools  given  not  only  a 
new  lease  on  life  but  a  more  advantageous  and  settled  position 
in  the  educational  system  than  they  had  enjoyed  in  fifty  years. 
The  fact  was  duly  exploited  that  while  the  act  had  transferred 
to  public  taxation  almost  the  entire  cost  of  maintenance  of  the 
voluntary  schools,  the  actual  management  of  these  schools,  in- 
cluding (with  few  restrictions)  the  appointment  of  teachers,  re- 
mained in  denominational  hands.  The  act  was  denounced  as  a 
device  intended  to  augment  the  power  of  the  Established  Church  ; 
and  it  wasargued  that  a  parliament  elected  almost  exclusively  upon 
questions  relating  to  the  war  in  South  Africa  had  no  moral  right 

1  For  a  convenient  reprint  of  the  important  parts  of  the  Education  Act  see 
J.  C.  ( '.reenough,  Evolution  of  Elementary  Schools  of  Great  Britain  (New  York,  1903), 
192-237. 


MISCELLANEOUS   PARTY  ISSUES  311 

to  enact  so  revolutionary  a  measure  upon  so  remote  a  subject. 
For  a  time,  indeed,  the  enforcement  of  the  law  was  seriously 
obstructed.  Thousands  of  Nonconformists  refused  to  pay  the 
rates  from  which  the  denominational  schools  were  to  be  sup- 
ported, only  to  have  their  property  sold  by  the  public  authorities 
to  satisfy  the  obligation.  More  than  seventy  thousand  were 
summoned  to  court,  and  many  were  imprisoned.  In  time,  the 
furor  died  down.  But  the  question  kept  an  uppermost  place  in 
politics,  from  which  it  was  hardly  ousted  even  by  Mr.  Chamber- 
lain's tariff  proposals ;  and  the  feeling  aroused  on  it  became  one 
of  the  principal  causes  of  the  overwhelming  defeat  of  the  Unionist 
party  at  the  parliamentary  elections  of  1906. 

The  Liberals  came  into  power  thoroughly  committed  to  the 
Nonconformist  cause,  and  one  of  the  first  great  pieces  of  legis- 
lation which  they  sought  to  carry  through  Parliament  was  a 
measure  calculated  to  undenominationalize,  although  not  alto- 
gether to  secularize,  popular  elementary  education.  The  bill, 
introduced  April  9,  1906,  by  Mr.  Augustine  Birrell,  president 
of  the  Board  of  Education,  stipulated,  in  the  main  (1)  that  after 
January  1,  1908,  only  such  schools  as  were  established,  supported, 
and  controlled  by  the  local  authorities  should  be  recognized  as 
public  schools  with  a  claim  upon  public  funds,  national  or  local ; 
(2)  that  after  the  date  mentioned  no  religious  tests  should  be 
required  of  teachers  in  any  public  school;  and  (3)  that  while 
denominational  religious  instruction  for  those  who  should  desire 
it  might  be  given  two  mornings  a  week  in  the  denominational 
schools  taken  over  by  the  local  authorities,  such  instruction 
should  be  given  by  persons  other  than  the  regular  teachers,  and 
not  at  public  expense.  The  objects  of  the  bill  were,  obviously, 
to  place  under  public  management  all  elementary  schools  aided 
from  public  funds,  to  provide  an  undenominational  school  within 
the  reach  of  every  child,  to  free  teachers  from  religious  tests, 
and  yet  at  the  same  time,  as  a  matter  of  compromise,  to  permit 
some  denominational  religious  teaching  in  schools  in  which  it 
hitherto  had  existed. 

Despite  the  opposition  of  the  Anglicans,  who  said  that  the 
measure  proposed  a  virtual  confiscation  of  the  denominational 
schools,  the  bill  passed  the  House  of  Commons  by  a  large  ma- 
jority, in  June,  1906.  In  the  House  of  Lords  the  opposition  was 
in  full  command ;  and  although  the  measure  was  passed  by  a 
substantial  majority,  it  was  fundamentally  changed  —  for 
example,  so  as  to  compel  instruction  in  religion,  presumably 
in  the  tenets  of  the  Established  Church.     The  lower  house  re- 


3i2  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

jected  the  Lords'  amendments  by  a  heavy  majority,  and  the 
Government,  declaring  compromise  impossible,  withdrew  the 
bill.    At  least  three  other  measures  on  the  subject,  sponsored 

by  the  Board  of  Education, appeared  later;  but  no  one  of  them 
ever  got  beyond  the  committee  stage,  and  tin-  act  of  [902  con- 
tinued in  operation  without  important  change  until  the  ( rreat  War. 
Alter  1909  the  issue  fell  somewhat  into  the  background,  while 
others  —  the  reform  of  taxation,  Home  Rule,  woman  suffrage, 
the  disestablishment  of  the  Church  in  Wales,  and  the  regulation 
of  the  liquor  trade  —  were  pushed  to  the  fore.  Hie  problem, 
however,  had  not  been  solved;  the  factors  in  it  remained  prac- 
tically unchanged;  and  when  the  situation  again  became  favor- 
able, sharp  controversy  upon  it  was  likely  to  be  resumed.  The 
war  led  to  anxious  inquiry  into  the  workings  and  the  results  of 
the  educational  machinery,  and  in  1918  an  extremely  important 
Education  Act  was  passed  with  a  view  to  toning  up  the  entire 
system.  Some  changes  were  made  in  the  duties  of  the  local 
education  authorities  and  in  the  distribution  of  government 
grants.  The  fundamental  issue  between  state-controlled  and 
denomination-controlled  education  was  not,  however,  removed, 
and  the  question  still  invites  to  party  controversy.1 

1  The  educational  system  and  the  principal  questions  concerning  it  are  clearly 
described  in  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II.  Chaps,  xlvii-1.  Historical  treatises 
include  G.  Balfour,  Educational  Systems  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  (<  >xford,  1898) ; 
H.  Holman,  English  National  Education  (London,  [898);  ami  j.  K.  (1.  Montmor- 
ency,  The  Progress  of  Education  in  England  (London,  [904).  The  religious  contro- 
versy is  reviewed  in  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  History,  III,  Chap.  iv.  War- 
time'legislation  is  described  in  A.  A.  Thomas,  The  Education  Act  of  igi8  (London, 
1919),  and  there  is  a  synopsis  in  U.  S.  Monthly  Labor  Rev.,  Dec,  1918. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 
PARTY  POLITICS  SINCE   1914 

Parties  and  the  Great  War.  —  War  can  usually  be  counted  on 
to  produce  important  changes  in  political  parties  and  party  align- 
ments. New  or  dormant  issues  are  brought  to  the  fore;  men 
are  forced  into  unaccustomed  relations,  which  alter  their  ways  of 
thinking  and  their  habits  of  action ;  and  even  if,  as  is  sometimes 
true,  public  sentiment  is  roused,  in  the  face  of  a  sudden  external 
danger,  to  demand  a  complete  cessation  of  party  contests  —  that 
is  to  say,  a  party  truce  —  in  the  end  there  is  apt  to  be  an  intensifi- 
cation, rather  than  otherwise,  of  party  spirit  and  party  activity. 
The  experience  of  Great  Britain  since  191 4  has  run  in  these 
general  lines;  and  it  is  the  purpose  of  the  present  chapter  to 
point  out  the  salient  features  of  this  experience  and  to  describe 
briefly  the  post  helium  state  of  parties,  as  far  as  it  could  be  de- 
termined some  eighteen  months  after  the  armistice. 

The  party  situation  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war  has  been  de- 
scribed elsewhere,1  and  the  major  facts  can  be  restated  in  a  few 
words.  The  Liberals  were  in  power,  and  Mr.  Asquith  was  prime 
minister,  although  the  party's  adherents  scarcely  outnumbered 
the  Unionists  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  the  premier  and  his 
colleagues  clung  to  office  only  with  the  aid  of  the  Irish  National- 
ists and  the  Laborites.  Acting  under  the  provisions  of  the  Par- 
liament Act,  the  Liberals  were  about  to  place  on  the  statute 
book  a  number  of  highly  contentious  measures  to  which  they  had 
long  been  devoted,  notably  Home  Rule  for  Ireland,  disestablish- 
ment of  the  Church  in  Wales,  and  the  abolition  of  plural  voting. 
The  Liberal  policy  inclined  strongly,  furthermore,  to  ameliorative 
social  legislation ;  the  Government  had  in  hand,  at  the  moment 
when  the  war  broke  out,  a  minimum  wage  bill  for  agricultural 
laborers.  A  general  election  was  not  more  than  fifteen  months 
distant,  and  the  results  of  by-elections,  confirmed  by  other  evi- 
dences, indicated  that  the  Unionists  had  so  far  regained  the  con- 
fidence of  the  country  that  they  would  be  in  a  position  to  go  into 
the  contest  with  a  fair  chance  of  winning.     Ireland  was  on  the 

1  See  pp.  257-259. 
3i3 


3i4  GOVERNMEN  l>   OF    EUROPE 

brink  of  civil  war  over  the  terms  of  the  Home  Rule  Hill ;  the 
militant  woman  suffragists  were  again  openly  defying  the  author- 
ities;   organized    labor   was   uncommonly    restless,    and    even 

public  employees  wen'  striking  in  short,  politics  was  at  the 
boiling  point  and  the  entire  aspect  of  public  affairs  was  almost 
unprecedented!}'  troubled.  Small  wonder  that  the  German  war 
lords,  intently  calculating  the  possibilities  of  an  international 
conflagration  on  the  continent,  came  to  the  comfortable  conclu- 
sion that  Britain's  internal  condition  would  not  permit  her,  even 
if  she  were  so  minded,  to  become  a  participant  in  the  contest. 

The  ease  and  speed  with  which  the  United  Kingdom  pulled 
itself  together,  dropped  its  domestic  quarrels,  and  turned  its  full 
strength  to  the  business  of  war  surprised  not  only  the  Germans 
but  the  world  generally.  Such  action  could  be  made  possible, 
of  course,  only  by  a  cessation  of  party  strife ;  and  the  capital 
fact  of  the  war  period  proper,  so  far  as  political  history  goes,  is  the 
suspension  of  party  activity,  just  as  the  prime  political  interest 
of  the  years  following  the  armistice  became  the  revival  of  party 
life  and  the  struggle  of  old  and  new  party  forces  for  dominance. 
On  July  30,  1914 — rive  days  before  Britain  entered  the  war 
the  premier,  having  conferred  with  the  leader  of  the  Opposition, 
and  with  other  men  outside  his  own  party,  voiced  in  a  solemn 
speech  in  the  House  of  Commons  the  feeling  of  all  groups  that 
it  was  of  vital  importance  that  the  country  should  be  able  to 
speak  and  act  in  the  crisis  "  with  the  authority  of  an  undivided 
nation"  ;  and  when  the  die  was  definitely  cast  for  war,  a  formal 
truce  was  entered  into  by  the  party  leaders,  to  be  binding  as  long 
as  the  contest  should  last.  Contentious  domestic  questions  were 
to  be  shelved ;  adherents  of  all  parties  were  to  work  together  in 
Parliament  for  the  country's  well-being  in  the  emergency,  without 
consideration  for  or  prejudice  to  their  party  standing ;  no  party 
was  to  try,  at  a  by-election,  to  wrest  a  seat  from  the  party  to 
which  it  "  belonged." 

The  Government's  decision  for  war  was  supported  by  all  parties 
except  the  Independent  Laborites;1  and  all  —  even  the  group 
mentioned  —  eventually  subscribed  to  the  truce.  Rupture  was 
threatened  when,  at  the  middle  of  September,  the  premier  an- 
nounced that  the  Home  Rule  Bill  and  the  Welsh  Disestablish- 
ment Bill  would  be  put  on  the  statute  book  forthwith,  accom- 

1  Certain  individual  leaders  demurred.  Thus,  Lord  Morley  and  John  Burns 
resigned  from  the  cabinet,  and  Ramsay  Macdonald  surrendered  the  chairmanship 
of  the  parliamentary  Labor  party,  rather  than  countenance  the  Government's 
decision. 


PARTY   POLITICS   SINCE   1914  315 

panied  by  measures  suspending  them  for  twelve  months  or  until 
the  termination  of  the  war.  In  the  course  of  a  particularly  stormy 
session  the  Unionist  members  of  the  House  of  Commons,  indeed, 
withdrew  from  the  chamber  in  a  body  as  a  protest  against  the 
Government's  "  indecent  violation  of  its  pledge." *  This  re- 
crudescence of  domestic  strife,  however,  roused  keen  public 
resentment,  and,  the  Irish  and  Welsh  questions  having  been  dis- 
posed of  as  the  Government  desired,  all  elements  turned  again 
to  the  tasks  imposed  by  the  war. 

It  was  illogical  —  at  all  events  under  the  English  system  — 
that  a  government  composed  of  members  of  a  single  party  should 
require  and  receive  the  support  of  the  adherents  of  .rival  parties 
through  a  long  and  indefinite  period.  Only  war  could  have  made 
the  arrangement  possible  for  even  a  short  time ;  yet  the  very 
fact  of  war  demanded  a  broader  basis  for  the  exercise  of  public 
authority.  The  adoption  of  the  coalition  principle,  in  May, 
191 5,  was  therefore  inevitable.  The  Liberal  premier  remained 
at  the  helm,  but  the  positions  of  chief  responsibility  in  the  minis- 
try were  apportioned  not  very  unequally  between  Liberals  and 
Unionists,  with  also  some  representation  of  Labor.  The  new 
cabinet  consisted  of  twelve  Liberals,  eight  Unionists,  and  one 
Labor  member,  besides  Lord  Kitchener,  who  was  not  a  party 
man.  Liberals,  Unionists,  and  Laborites  together  formed 
eighty-eight  per  cent  of  the  membership  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons ;  so  that,  for  all  practical  purposes,  Government  and  Op- 
position were  merged  in  one  homogeneous  body.  Party  activ- 
ity was  reduced  to  a  minimum,  both  in  Parliament  and  outside. 

The  history  and  character  of  the  coalition  under  Mr.  Asquith, 
and  of  the  coalition  and  war  cabinet  under  Mr.  Lloyd  George, 
have  been  dealt  with  elsewhere.2  It  must  suffice  to  note  here 
merely  that  dissolution  of  the  alliance  was  many  times  threatened 
and  barely  prevented ;  that  there  were  numerous  resignations 
of  individual  ministers;  that  after  the  reorganization  of  the 
ministry  by  Lloyd  George  in  December,  1916,  the  most  impor- 
tant posts — aside  from  the  premiership — passed  into  the  hands 
of  Unionists  ;  that  Unionism  steadily  strengthened  its  hold  upon, 
not  only  the  government,  but  the  country  at  large ;  that  in  191 7- 
18  a  formal  Opposition  once  more  appeared  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, led  by  ex-Premier  Asquith  ;  that  from  the  summer  of  1918 
Labor  also  went  its  own  way ;  and  that  by  the  date  of  the  armis- 
tice the  country  was  again  the  scene  of  party  strife  almost  as 

1  London  Times  (Weekly  ed.),  Sept.  18,  1914,  p.  741. 

2  See  pp.  106-111. 


3i6  GOVERNMENTS  01    EI  ROPE 

vigorou    as  before  the  war,  although  the  lines  were  differently 

drawn  and  the  issues  were  somewhat  less  i  lear-cut. 

The  party  situation  as  it  stood  when  Britain  emerged  from  the 
war  is  best  shown  by  the  circumstances  and  results  ol  the  par- 
liamentary election  of  December,  1918;  and  an  account  of  that 

notable  contest,  with  a  summary  of  party  developments  follow- 
ing it,  will  be  undertaken  below.  One  major  factor  in  the  situa- 
tion must,  however,  be  singled  out  for  emphasis  before  ^nu^  far- 
ther, namely,  the  revival,  in  a  new  form,  of  the  problem  of  Ire- 
land. 

The  Irish  Question :  Sinn  Fein.  -  The  history  and  merits 
of  the  Irish  question  have  been  considered  elsewhere,  and  the 
criti<  al  stage  at  which  the  issue  had  arrived  when  the  World  War 
came  on  in  1914  has  been  duly  described.1  There  will  be  no 
attempt  here  to  do  more  than  point  out  the  main  phases  of  the 
controversy  during  the  war  period,  and  to  show  the  character 
of  the  new  Home  Rule  Bill  which  the  Coalition  Government  hoped 
in  1 919  to  make  the  basis  of  a  lasting  settlement.  As  has  been 
pointed  out,  the  party  truce  was  accompanied  by  an  agreement 
to  the  effect  that  the  Home  Rule  Bill  of  191 2,  which,  having 
been  passed  three  times  by  the  House  of  Commons,  lacked  only 
the  royal  assent  to  make  it  law,  should  be  put  on  the  statute 
book,  but  should  be  suspended  for  the  duration  of  the  war; 
and  the  Liberal  Government  was  committed  to  some  form  of 
amendment  of  the  measure  in  the  interest  of  Ulster  before  it 
should  take  effect.  This  arrangement  seemed  to  have  disposed 
of  the  question  as  long  as  the  war  should  last.  The  Irish  Na- 
tionalist leaders,  notably  John  Redmond,  supported  the  Gov- 
ernment wholeheartedly  in  its  efforts  to  bring  victory  to  the 
Allies  ;  volunteering  was  understood  to  be  going  on  satisfactorily 
in  both  the  north  and  south  of  Ireland  ;  it  was  supposed  that  the 
heart  of  the  Irish  people  was  with  Britain  and  her  co-belligerents ; 
and  for  upwards  of  a  year  the  outward  serenity  of  the  situation 
was  not  disturbed. 

We  now  know  that,  even  in  the  early  months  of  the  war,  the 
Irish  people  were  restless  and  discontented,  and  that  by  the  close 
of  1915  troubles  were  brewing  which  the  authorities  were  unable 
to  forestall.  An  immediate  grant  of  Home  Rule  was  widely 
demanded;  volunteering,  actively  obstructed  by  the  radical 
elements,  yielded  steadily  diminishing  numbers  of  recruits; 
official  vigilance  did  not  prevent  the  Germans  from  obtaining 
supplies  on  the  west  Irish  coast ;   and  presently  it  was  disclosed 

1  See  pp.  281-395. 


PARTY   POLITICS   SINCE    1914  317 

that  clever  propagandists  were  fast  converting  the  bulk  of  Irish- 
men from  Home  Rulers  to  advocates  of  radical  republicanism 
and  of  complete  national  independence.  The  principal  agent 
of  this  propaganda  was  a  society  known  as  Sinn  Fein.  The 
term  means  "ourselves  alone,"  and  the  organization  drew  its 
inspiration  from  a  series  of  efforts  about  the  opening  of  the  pres- 
ent century  to  revive  and  perpetuate  Gaelic  culture,  especially 
on  linguistic  and  literary  lines.  The  movement  had  much  in 
common  with  nationalistic  tendencies  in  the  same  period  in  other 
parts  of  Europe,  and  in  Asia  and  Africa  as  well.  As  a  distinct 
society,  Sinn  Fein  dates  from  1905,  and,  under  the  leadership  of 
Arthur  Griffith,  a  vigorous  Dublin  agitator  and  editor,  it  took  on 
from  the  first  an  essentially  political  character.  Its  adherents 
deprecated  the  Nationalists'  caution  and  willingness  to  compro- 
mise. They  believed  that  by  natural  right  their  country  was  a 
sovereign  state,  and  they  denied  the  validity  of  all  agreements 
and  arrangements  which  subordinated  it  to  the  British  Empire. 
They  wanted  to  sever  all  political  ties  with  Britain,  to  purge  the 
land  of  every  form  of  British  influence,  and  to  set  up  an  inde- 
pendent commonwealth. 

For  several  years  the  Sinn  Fein  movement  made  little 
headway ;  the  Nationalists  held  the  field,  and  the  bulk  of  the 
people  were  bent  on  concessions  under  British  rule  rather  than 
on  independence.  As  late  as  191 2,  when  the  third  Home  Rule 
Bill  was  introduced,  the  Sinn  Feiners  were  regarded  as  only  a 
noisy  and  irresponsible  faction.  The  events,  however,  of  the 
two  succeeding  years,  the  Ulster  protest,  the  Unionist  support 
of  the  Ulsterites'  position,  the  preparations  for  armed  conflict, 
and  the  forced  decision  of  the  Liberal  Government  to  concede 
Ulster  some  form  of  special  treatment  —  put  into  the  hands  of 
the  radical  leaders  a  lever  with  which  to  move  the  people  almost 
en  masse  ;  and  by  1914  Sinn  Fein  was  in  a  position  to  challenge 
the  moderate  Nationalist  policy  at  every  turn.  Then  came  the 
war,  and  with  it  the  truce,  in  which  even  Sinn  Fein  outwardly 
shared.  It  is  apparent  enough  now  that  the  Sinn  Fein  propa- 
ganda was  never  more  than  momentarily  interrupted,  that  active 
dealings  with  the  Germans  went  on  steadily,  that  it  was  confi- 
dently believed  that  Germany  would  give  whatever  aid  was 
needed  for  the  final  expulsion  of  British  power,  and  that  the  idea 
took  hold  early  that  now  was  the  time  to  strike  for  independence. 
The  upshot  was  an  armed  insurrection  in  Dublin  on  the  Monday 
after  Easter,  191 6.  The  rebellion  was  promptly  put  down,  but 
not  until  the  Sinn  Feiners  had  challenged  the  world's  attention 


3i8  GOVKRNMKNTS   OF    EUROPE 

by  proclaiming  the  Irish  Republic  a  sovereign  and  independent 
state,  and  by  electing  a  visionary  schoolmaster  to  be  its  presi- 
dent. 

The  Easter  uprising  brought  the  Irish  situation  to  a  new  crisis, 
and  from  this  point  is  to  be  dated  a  state  of  quasi-warf are ^ be- 
tween the  British  government  and  the  Irish  Catholic  populations 
which  has  hardly  been  ameliorated  since.  On  the  one  hand,  the 
British  authorities  felt  it  necessary  to  put  the  country  under 
martial  law,  to  mete  out  summary  punishment  to  the  insurn ■<  - 
tionists,  and  to  limit  the  freedom  of  the  people  in  a  wide  variety 
of  ways.  On  the  other  hand,  the  government's  measures 
invested  the  rebellion's  leaders  with  a  halo  of  martyrdom  and 
made  the  name  Sinn  Fein  one  to  conjure  with  from  Donegal  to 
Cork.  In  191 7  the  Sinn  Fein  organization  and  program  were 
overhauled,  and  a  young  teacher  of  American  birth,  Eamonn 
De  Valera,  assumed  active  leadership.  By  191 8  Nationalists 
were  suffering  defeat  in  practically  every  by-election  in  which 
Sinn  Fein  candidates  were  opposed  to  them,  and  it  was  manifest 
that  the  center  of  gravity  of  the  entire  Irish  question  had  shifted 
from  the  issue  of  Home  Rule  to  the  issue  of  independence.^ 

Futile  Attempts  at  Settlement.  —  Meanwhile  the  British 
government,  harassed  by  the  burdens  of  the  war  in  Europe  and 
by  numerous  tasks  incident  thereto,  made  intermittent  efforts 
to  bring  about  a  reconciliation,  if  not  a  lasting  settlement.  First, 
in  the  summer  of  191 6,  Mr.  Lloyd  George,  who  was  deputed  to 
negotiate  with  the  Irish  leaders  and  to  arrange  a  compromise, 
reported  a  plan  under  which  Home  Rule  was  to  be  immediately 
brought  into  operation,  with  the  exclusion  of  the  Protestant 
portions  of  Ulster,  and  upon  the  understanding  that  the  entire 
arrangement  would  be  subject  to  revision  after  the  war.  But 
the  Sinn  Feiners  and  part  of  the  Unionists  objected,  and  the 
scheme  was  not  carried  out.  Next,  in  March,  191 7,  the  National- 
ists formally  demanded  that  the  Home  Rule  Act,  as  it  stood  on  the 

1  A  brief  impartial  account  of  the  growth  of  Sinn  Fein,  and  of  the  Easter  uprising, 
is  Turner,  Ireland  and  England,  315-395.  Partisan  histories  of  Sinn  Fein  include 
F.  P.  Jones,  History  of  tlu  Sinn  Fein  Movement  and  the  Irish  Rebellion  of  1916 
(New  York,  1917),  and  P.  S.  O'Hegarty,  Sinn  Fein:  an  Illumination  (Dublin, 
1018).  The  uprising  of  1916  is  described  from  the  Sinn  Fein  point  of  view  in  M. 
Skinnider,  Doing  My  Bit  for  Ireland  (New  York,  ior;),  and  from  the  Nationalist 
point  of  view  in  F.'G.  Redmond-Howard, Six  Days  of  the  Irish  Republic  (Boston, 
1916) ;  and  more  impartial  accounts  are  W.  P..  Wells  and  X.  Marlowe,  History  of  the 
Irish  Rebellion  of  1016  (New  York,  1917),  and  J.  F.  Boyle,  The  Irish  Rebellion  of 
TQ16  (London,  1916).  Nos.  102-103  of  the  London  Times  Illustrated  History  and 
Em  yclopedia  of  the  War  are  devoted  to  the  subject,  and  there  is  an  official  account 
in  Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  the  Rebellion  in  Ireland,  1916,  Cd.  8279. 


PARTY  POLITICS   SINCE    1914  319 

statute  book,  should  be  put  into  effect,  as  "  proof  of  Britain's 
sincerity  in  championship  of  small  nations  and  democracy." 
But  Unionist-Ulsterite  opposition  was  sufficient  to  prevent  this 
from  being  done.  Various  other  proposals  having  failed,  an 
Irish  convention  was  assembled  at  Dublin,  July  25,  191 7,  on 
suggestion  of  the  Government,  to  work  out  a  plan.  The  inten- 
tion was  that  the  gathering  should  be  representative  of  all  parties  ; 
but  the  Sinn  Feiners  refused  to  participate,  preferring  to  hold  a 
convention  of  their  own  at  which  they  adopted  a  resolution  as- 
serting that  "  any  and  every  means  "  should  be  employed  to 
expel  the  British  from  Ireland  and  drew  up  a  constitution  for 
an  independent  Irish  republic.  The  report  of  the  loyalist  con- 
vention given  out  on  April  12,  1918,  tried  to  reconcile  conflicting 
interests  by  a  scheme  for  immediate  Home  Rule  with  special 
privileges  of  representation  for  Ulster.  But  both  the  extreme 
Unionists  and  the  extreme  Nationalists  presented  minority  re- 
ports which  showed  that  no  real  settlement  had  been  reached.1 
At  this  juncture  the  controversy  was  raised  to  a  new  pitch  by 
the  premier's  proposal  to  introduce  Home  Rule  and  conscrip- 
tion simultaneously.  A  conscription  bill  was  passed  by  the  House 
of  Commons ;  but  the  opposition,  not  only  of  Irishmen  of  all 
groups,  but  of  large  numbers  of  Englishmen,  was  so  bitter  that, 
great  as  was  the  need  of  increased  man-power  on  the  western 
front,  the  plan  had  to  be  given  up.2 

Throughout  the  remainder  of  191 8  the  tension  continued 
unrelieved,  and  the  closing  months  of  the  year  brought  fresh 
opportunity  for  demonstration  of  Sinn  Fein  strength  and  purpose. 
The  first  opportunity  of  the  kind  came  with  the  parliamentary 
election  of  December.  In  this  contest  the  Irish  question  loomed 
large.  In  their  election  manifesto  the  leaders  of  the  Coalition 
Government,  Lloyd  George  and  Law,  urged  that  there    could 

1  The  reports  showed  that  the  member?  of  the  convention  fell  into  three  main 
groups:  (1)  a  moderate,  central  group,  which  advocated  a  solution  on  federal 
lines,  Ireland  becoming  substantially  a  state  in  a  United  Kingdom  federation; 
(2)  an  Ulster  group,  which  urged  the  maintenance  of  the  existing  union,  or,  if  that 
was  impossible,  the  exclusion  of  six  counties  of  Ulster  from  any  Home  Rule  act ; 
and  (3)  an  extreme  Nationalist  group,  which  demanded  that  Ireland  should  be 
given  the  status  of  a  self-governing  dominion,  as  Canada.  Sinn  Fein  sentiment  was, 
of  course,  not  represented.  On  the  convention  see,  in  addition  to  contemporary 
periodical  literature,  J.  Quinn  and  G.  W.  Russell,  The  Irish  Home  Rule  Convention 
(New  York,  1918),  and  W.  B.  Wells  and  N.  Marlowe,  The  Irish  Convention  and  Sinn 
Fein  (New  York,  1919).  The  official  report  of  the  convention  is  to  be  found  in  a 
Blue-book  (Cd.  9019),  and  there  is  an  authoritative  popular  account  in  London  Ttmes 
(Weekly  ed.),  Oct.  31,  191 9,  and  succeeding  issues.  The  interval  between  the  Easter 
rebellion  and  the  convention  is  reviewed  in  Round  Table,  Dec,  1916,  and  Mar.', 
1917. 

2  Turner,  Ireland  and  England,  418-437. 


320  GOVERNMEN  rs  oi     1.1  ROPE 

In-  no  political  peace  for  the  realm  until  the  Erish  question  was 
settled,  and  that  it  should  be  settled  on  tin-  basis  "i  self-govern- 
ment, but  added  that  there  musl  he  no  separation  from  Greal 
Britain  and  that  Ulster  must  not  he  placed  under  forcible  sub- 
jection. Ex-Premier  Asquith,  speaking  for  the  non  coalition 
Liberals,  demanded  that  [rish  self-government  be  forthwith  put 
into  operation  on  the  basis  of  the  act  of  ior4,  and  the  Labor 
party  laid  stress  on  Ireland's  right  to  "  freedom."  In  the  i< 
land  itself,  the  contest  lay  mainly  between  the  Nationalists  and 
Sinn  Fein.  The  new  party  put  up  candidates  for  all  but  five  of 
the  105  seats  to  which  the  country  was  entitled,  and  the  contest 
developed  such  bitterness  as  not  even  Ireland  had  known.  People 
who  knew  the  situation  expected  substantial  Sinn  Fein  successes. 
But  not  even  the  Sinn  Fein  leaders  themselves  looked  for  the  land- 
slide that  resulted.  The  Unionists  secured  a  total  of  25  seats, 
thus  practically  holding  their  own.  The  Nationalists  obtained 
7.  as  compared  with  84  in  1910;  Sinn  Fein  captured  the  remain- 
ing 7,}.  The  Nationalist  party — the  party  of  Butt  and  Parnell, 
1  if  Redmond  and  Dillon  —  was  not  only  defeated  and  repudiated  ; 
it  was  practically  annihilated.  Among  the  Sinn  Fein  victors 
was  the  cultured  Countess  de  Markievicz,  English  by  birth  and 
Polish  by  marriage,  whose  Dublin  home  had  long  been  a  center 
of  Sinn  Fein  influence,  and  who  thus  became  the  first  woman  to 
be  elected  to  Parliament.1 

The  Sein  Fein  candidates  announced  during  the  campaign 
that,  if  elected,  they  would  keep  up  protest  against  the  British 
connection  by  refusing  to  take  their  seats-,  and  this  pledge  was 
scrupulously  observed.  In  point  of  fact,  thirty-seven  of  the  suc- 
cessful ones  were  at  the  time  in  jail,  and  four  were  under  indict- 
ment in  the  United  States.  In  January,  1010,  such  of  the  newly 
elected  members  as  were  free  to  do  so  assembled  in  the  Mansion 
House  at  Dublin  and  organized  themselves  into  a  constituent 
assembly  with  a  view  to  giving  Ireland  an  independent  republican 
government.  There  was  to  be  a  parliament  (Dail  Eirann), 
consisting  of  deputies  chosen  in  the  existing  constituencies,  and 
executive  authority  was  to  be  lodged  in  a  president  and  a  group 
of  ministers.  The  principle  of  self-determination  was  declared 
no  less  applicable  to  Ireland  than  to  Poland  or  Czechoslovakia, 
and  fervid,  although  futile,  appeals  were  repeatedly  addressed 
to  President  Wilson,  to  French  and  Italian  statesmen,  and  finally 
to  the  Peace  Conference  itself,  asking  that  Ireland  should  be 

1  I'.  Colum,  "The  Sinn  Fein  Victory  in  the  Irish  Elections,"  in  N.  V.  Nation, 
Jan.  1 1,  iqio. 


PARTY  POLITICS   SINCE   1914  321 

admitted  to  representation  in  the  Conference  on  the  same  basis 
as  Great  Britain,  or  at  all  events  that  the  country's  independence 
should  be  promptly  and  unconditionally  recognized.  In  Febru- 
ary, 1919,  De  Valera,  who  had  defeated  the  Nationalist  leader, 
Dillon,  in  a  former  Nationalist  stronghold,  and  who  had  been 
elected  president  of  the  Irish  republic  while  he  was  confined  in 
an  English  prison,  escaped  from  confinement ;  and  shortly  after- 
wards, having  appeared  among  his  followers  and  encouraged  them 
to  keep  up  the  fight,  he  made  his  way  to  the  United  States,  where 
he  obtained  some  assistance  for  his  cause,  both  financial  and 
moral.1 

Home  Rule  Bill  of  1919.  —  Meanwhile,  the  Lloyd  George 
Government  turned  attention  afresh  to  a  settlement  of  the 
problem.  Four  fifths  of  Ireland  was  in  covert  rebellion ;  an 
insurrectionary  government  steadily  defied  the  British  authori- 
ties, even  though  it  was  itself  unable  to  function ;  a  semblance 
of  order  was  maintained  only  by  armed  repression ;  one  unfor- 
tunate event  after  another  showed  how  bitter  was  the  Irish 
feeling  and  how  difficult  it  would  be  to  find  a  basis  of  agreement. 
Official  conferences  and  informal  discussions  went  on  intermit- 
tently for  months,  and  only  at  the  close  of  191 9.  was  the  Govern- 
ment ready  to  lay  its  proposals  before  Parliament.  On  Decem- 
ber 22  —  three  days  after  an  unsuccessful  attempt  in  Dublin  to 
assassinate  General  French,  the  Lord  Lieutenant  —  Lloyd  George 
outlined  the  forthcoming  bill  in  a  masterful  speech.2  The  meas- 
ure, officially  known  as  the  Government  of  Ireland  Bill,  passed 
its  first  reading  on  February  27,  1920,  and  its  full  contents  were 
then  for  the  first  time  made  public. 

The  plan  embodied  in  the  bill  —  the  fourth  historic  measure 
of  the  kind  —  was  prepared  by  a  cabinet  committee  whose  chair- 
man was  Walter  Long,  First  Lord  of  the  Admiralty.  As  ex- 
plained by  the  premier,  it  rested  on  three  basic  considerations : 
first,  that  three  fourths  of  the  Irish  people,  being  rebels  at  heart, 
would  be  bitterly  hostile  to  any  scheme  that  the  Government 
might  propose ;  second,  that  Ulster  must  not  be  subjected  to 
the  rule  of  a  Catholic  majority ;  and  third,  that  the  severance  of 
Ireland  from  the  United  Kingdom  would  be  fatal  to  the  interests 
of  the  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  alike,  and  that  any  attempt 
at  secession  must  be  resisted  by  force.     The  measure  was  drawn 

1  De  Valera,  "Ireland's  Right  to  Independence,"  in  N.  Y.  Nation,  June  7,  1919. 
A  useful  resume  of  the  Home  Rule  question  during  the  war  is  Turner,  Ireland  and 
England,  .396-417. 

2  Reprinted  in  N.  Y.  Times  Curr.  Hist.,  Feb.,  1920,  pp.  205-214. 


j22  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

on  lines  wholly  different  from  its  predecessors.  Its  salient  fea- 
tures were:  (C  two  unicameral  [rish  parliaments,  one  at  Bel- 
fast representing  the  six  counties  of  Antrim,  Down,  Armagh, 
Londonderry,  Fermanagh,  and  Tyrone,  and  the  boroughs  of 
Belfast  and  Londonderry,  and  the  other  at  Dublin,  representing 
the  remainder  of  the  country;  (2)  the  members  of  the  Hou 
Commons  of  Northern  Ireland  (52  in  number)  and  of  the  House 
of  Commons  of  Southern  Ireland  (128  in  number)  were  to  be 
chosen  by  the  same  electorate  that  returns  members  to  the  Im- 
perial Parliament,  on  the  principle  of  proportional  representa- 
tion; (3)  a  Federal  Council  of  forty  member-  I  twenty  elected  by 
each  legislature),  with  a  president  appointed  by  the  crown; 
(4)  in  addition  to  full  powers  of  private  bill  Legislation  and  regu- 
lation of  railways,  this  Federal  Council  might  consider  any 
matters  touching  the  welfare  of  either  part  of  the  country  and 
make  recommendations  concerning  them,  and  it  should  have  such 
additional  powers  within  the  range  of  the  authority  of  the  new 
parliaments  as  they  should  bestow  on  it ;  (5  )  the  two  parliaments 
were  to  have  full  legislative  powers  over  all  subjects  not  expressly 
reserved  to  the  Imperial  (or,  as  the  premier  significantly  called 
it,  the  Federal)  Parliament  at  Westminster,  such  reserved  sub- 
jects being,  chiefly,  war  and  peace,  the  army  and  navy,  treason, 
aliens  and  naturalization,  foreign  trade,  coinage,  customs  and 
excises,  and  excess  profits  and  income  taxes;  (6)  there  should  be 
no  attempt  by  the  government  of  the  United  Kingdom  to  bring 
about  a  union  of  the  two  legislatures,  but  these  bodies  were  them- 
selves empowered  to  establish  such  a  union,  and  the  hope,  as 
well  as  belief,  was  expressed  that  this  would  soon  come  to  pass ; 
(7)  executive  power  should  remain  in  the  king  and  should  be 
exercised  through  a  Lord  Lieutenant,  appointed  for  six  years,  and 
through  two  sets  of  ministers,  one  in  the  north  and  the  other  in 
the  south  ;  (8)  there  should  be  a  separate  judiciary  for  each  of  the 
two  areas,  with  a  High  Court  of  Appeal  for  the  entire  country ; 
(9)  as  provided  by  the  Home  Rule  Bill  of  191 2,  Ireland  should 
retain  forty-two  representatives  in  the  House  of  Commons  at 
Westminster  ;  (10)  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Imperial  Parlia- 
ment should  remain  unimpaired  over  all  "  persons,  matters,  and 
things  "  in  Ireland.  The  closing  clause  of  the  measure  repealed 
the  Home  Rule  Act  passed  in  1914.1 

As  was  expected,  the  bill  was  coldly  received  in  Ireland; 
Sinn  Fein  demanded  complete  independence,  the  Ulster  Unionists 
urged  the  maintenance  of  the  status  quo,  and  there  was  no  one  to 

1  For  a  fuller  summary  see  N.  Y.  Times  Curr.  Hist.,  May,  1920,  pp.  201-203. 


PARTY   POLITICS   SINCE    1914  323 

defend  the  federal  plan.  The  island  became  more  and  more  tur- 
bulent, and  military  rule  was  tightened,  until  the  country  became 
practically  an  armed  camp.  Sinn  Fein  won  fresh  triumphs  in 
the  municipal  elections  of  January  15,  and  became  more  than 
ever  dominant  and  defiant.1  In  England  the  bill  was  strongly 
opposed  by  the  Labor  party  and  by  the  Independent,  or  non- 
coalition,  Liberals.  The  former  demanded  that  the  principle 
of  self-determination  be  applied  to  Ireland,  although  a  com- 
mission sent  to  study  the  subject  on  the  spot  said  in  its  report 
that  the  lesser  island  must  be  kept  under  the  control  of  the  Im- 
perial Parliament  in  all  that  pertained  to  foreign  relations  and 
defense.2  The  Independent  Liberals  held  to  the  principles  of 
the  act  of  1914,  arguing  that  the  new  scheme  neither  met  the 
demands  nor  had  the  approval  of  any  element  in  the  island,  that 
(contrary  to  the  professed  belief  of  the  Government)  the  division 
of  the  country  for  which  it  provided  would  tend  to  become  perma- 
nent, and  that  no  geographical  lines  could  be  drawn  which  would 
satisfy  all  elements.  On  the  other  hand,  the  adherents  of  the 
Coalition  Government,  whether  of  Unionist  or  Liberal  proclivi- 
ties, supported  the  bill  with  such  enthusiasm  as  they  could  com- 
mand, arguing  chiefly  that  it  could  be  passed  safely  in  justice 
to  the  remainder  of  the  United  Kingdom,  that  it  conferred  on 
Ireland  as  much  self-government  as  the  security  of  all  interests 
would  permit,  that  it  gave  the  Irish  people  a  chance  to  settle 
their  own  quarrels, ~and  that  the  scheme  was  so  constructed  that 
it  could  easily  be  made  to  fit  into  a  general  federal  system  such  as, 
according  to  certain  Government  leaders,  would  eventually  have 
to  be  adopted.3 

On  March  29  the  bill  passed  its  second  reading  by  a  majority 
of  254  votes,  which  was  unexpectedly  large ;  and  at  the  date  of 
writing  (June,  1920)  the  measure  was  reasonably  certain  to 
become  law,  although  numerous  amendments  were  pending  — 
including  one  supported  by  the  Independent  Liberals  and  by 
Labor  providing  that  there  should  be  but  a  single  parliament, 
and  another  backed  by  the  Independent  Liberals  proposing 
county  option  for  Ulster.  It  was  by  no  means  certain  that  some 
changes,  although  hardly  any  so  far-reaching  as  those  named, 
would  be  made.     Ulster  was,  on  the  whole,  prepared  to  accept 

1  Approximately  eighty-five  per  cent  of  the  Sinn  Fein  candidates  were  successful. 
Even  in  Londonderry  the  Unionists  were  defeated,  and  in  the  province  of  Ulster  as 
a  whole  the  Sinn  Fein  vote  was  238,374,  as  compared  with  a  Unionist  vote  of  238,318. 

2  The  report  of  this  commission  is  reprinted  in  N.  Y.  Nation,  Apr.  10,  1Q20. 

3  It  will  be  recalled  that  a  Speaker's  Conference  on  Devolution  was  now  studying 
this  problem.      See  p.  204. 


324  GOVERNMEN  rs   OF    EUROPE 

the  new  arrangements.  Bui  the  Nationalists  were  warmly 
opposed  to  them;  Sinn  Fein  gave  no  evidence  of  a  change  of 
heart;  ami  it  was  widely  predicted  thai  the  scheme  would  im- 
mediately break  down  through  the  refusal  of  Catholic  Ireland  to 
take  the  >teps  necessary  to  organize  under  it.  Meanwhile  the 
need  of  a  settlement  was  humming  daily  more  urgent,  not  only 
in  view  of  the  chad  Lc  conditions  in  the  island,  hut  because,  under 
the  terms  of  the  Home  Rule  Act  of  1014.  the  completion  of  the 
pea<  e  negotiations  with  the  belligerenl  states  would  automatically 
bring  that  measure  which  now  found  little  support  outside 
of  Independent  Liberalism  and  Labor       into  effect. 

The  Election  of  1918 :  the  Coalition  Campaign.'  War- 
time conditions  joined  with  a  new  electoral  law  to  give  the  British 
parliamentary  elections  of  December.  [918,  many  novel  features. 
The  national  electorate,  including  six  million  women,  was  twice 
as  large  as  ever  before;  balloting,  except  by  soldiers  and  other 
absentees,  was  confined  to  a  single  day;  votes  were  allowed  to 
1  »e  sent  in  by  post,  and  even  to  be  cast  by  proxy  ;  the  usual  party 
contest  was  replaced  by  a  trial  of  strength  between  a  coalition 
government,  which  found  support  among  practically  all  political 
elements,  and  a  number  of  groups  whose  physiognomy  would 
hardly  have  been  recognized  by  an  ante  helium  observer. 

The  first  important  question  was  whether  there  should  be  an 
election  at  all ;  that  is,  whether  before  the  peace  treaty  was  signei  1 . 
The  adoption  of  the  Representation  of  the  People  Act  in  the 
preceding  February  set  up  a  presumption  that  Parliament  would 
be  dissolved  reasonably  soon.  Military  reverses  in  ensuing 
months  discouraged  all  plans  in  that  direction.  But  by  mid- 
summer the  situation  on  the  various  fronts  was  again  well  in 
hand,  and  thenceforward  there  were  increasing  signs  that  the 
Coalition  Government  meant  to  make  an  early  appeal  to  the 
electorate  for  a  fresh  lease  of  power  ;  and  its  purpose  in  the  matter 
was  definitely  announced  in  the  early  autumn.  The  old-line 
Liberals,  led  by  ex-Premier  Asquith,  strongly  opposed  the  plan. 
They  said  that,  notwithstanding  the  arrangements  contemplated 
in  the  new  electoral  law,  a  large  proportion  of  the  three  million 
British  and  Irish  soldiers  on  foreign  soil  would  be  unable  to  vote. 
They  urged,  too.  that  no  election  was  needed  to  enable  the  Coali- 
tion Government  to  go  to  the  peace  conference  with  the  mandate 
of  a  united  people ;  that  Government  had  won  the  war,  and  no 
one  disputed   its  right    to  make  the   peace.     The    Labor    party 

1  The  following  three  sections  arc  adapted  From  an  article  published  by  the 
author  in  the  Amer.  Polit.  Set.  Rev.,  Feb.,  1919. 


PARTY   POLITICS   SINCE   1914  325 

also  objected,  ostensibly  because  of  apprehension  about  the  soldier 
vote,  although  in  fact  mainly  because  the  machinery  which  the 
party  had  been  building  up  in  the  constituencies  since  its  reor- 
ganization earlier  in  the  year  was  as  yet  incomplete. 

The  Coalition  leaders,  however,  declared  an  early  election  a 
plain  necessity.  The  existing  parliament  dated  from  December, 
1 910,  and  hence  had  overrun  the  legal  maximum  by  three  years ; 
five  times  since  191 5  it  had  by  resolution  extended  its  own  life. 
It  is  true  that  almost  one  half  of  the  members  of  the  House  of 
Commons  had  been  returned  at  by-elections  since  the  general 
elections  of  1910.  But  every  one  conceded  that  the  chamber  had 
grown  weary,  spiritless,  feeble,  and  unrepresentative.  It  was 
moribund,  -declared  the  premier,  and  lacking  in  authority  from 
the  broadened  and  altered  electorate  to  deal  with  the  great  prob- 
lems confronting  the  country.  Britain's  spokesmen  at  the  peace 
conference  must  know  that  they  had  behind  them  a  House  of 
Commons  fully  and  freshly  representative  of  the  nation,  and  one 
which  could  be  trusted  to  take  up  with  unspent  vigor  the  tasks 
of  economic  and  social .  reconstruction.  Non-coalition  Liberals 
charged  that  the  premier  was  looking  beyond  the  peace,  and  that 
what  he  really  had  in  mind  was  a  prolonged  lease  of  power,  to 
be  obtained  while  the  nation  was  disinclined  to  a  political  over- 
turn, and  to  be  employed  in  carrying  out  a  program  fashioned  in 
collaboration  with  his  Unionist  supporters. 

Parliament  was  prorogued  on  November  21,  and  the  dissolution 
followed  in  four  days.1  Already,  on  November  16,  the  premier 
and  Mr.  Law  (the  chief  Unionist  member  of  the  war  cabinet) 
had  opened  the  Coalition  campaign  at  a  meeting  in  Central  Hall, 
Westminster ;  and  soon  thereafter  they  put  their  case  before  the 
voters  in  a  joint  manifesto.  Notwithstanding  their  emphasis 
upon  the  imminence  of  the  peace  conference  as  a  reason  for  hold- 
ing an  election,  the  Government  leaders  were  curiously  silent  upon 
international  matters  until  the  campaign  was  far  advanced. 
The  premier  made  long  speeches  in  which  the  subject  was  not 
touched;  the  manifesto  briefly  proclaimed  the  Government's 
intention,  if  kept  in  power,  to  procure  a  "  just  and  lasting  peace  " 
and  to  promote  the  formation  of  a  league  of  free  nations,  but 
devoted  itself  mainly  to  topics  of  a  domestic,  or  at  least  a  purely 
British,  character.  Of  such  topics,  seven  were  given  principal 
emphasis :    (1)  land  reform,  with  a  view  to  the  general  extension 

xThe  party  complexion  of  the  House  of  Commons  at  the  dissolution  was: 
Unionists",  282  ;  Liberals,  260;  Laborites,  38 ;  Irish  Nationalists,  78 ;  Sinn  Feiners, 
6 ;  miscellaneous,  6  —  total  670. 


326  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

of  allotments  and  small  holdings,  the  increase  of  agricultural 
wages,  the  expansion  of  agricultural  production,  and  especially 
the  settlement  of  returned  soldiers  and  sailors  on  the  land; 
1 2)  housing  reform,  and  the  improvement  of  village  life  on  "  large 
and  comprehensive  lines";  (3)  fiscal  legislation  so  shaped  as  to 
reduce  the  war  debt  with  a  minimum  of  injury  to  industry  and 
credit,  to  avoid  fresh  taxes  on  food  and  raw  materials,  and  to  set 

up  a  preference  in  favor  of  the  colonies  upon  existing  or  future 
■duties;  (4)  liberation  of  industry  as  speedily  as  possible  from 
government  control  ;  (5)  reform  of  the  House  of  Lords,  so  as  to 
create  a  second  chamber  "  which  will  be  based  upon  direct  con- 
tact with  the  people,  and  will,  therefore,  be  representative 
enough  adequately  to  perform  its  functions";  (6)  execution  of 
the  pledge  already  given  to  "  develop  responsible  government  in 
India  by  gradual  stages"  ;  and  (71  solution  of  the  Irish  problem 
on  the  basis  of  self-government,  but  without  either  the  severance 
of  the  island  from  the  British  Empire  or  the  forced  submission  of 
Ulster  to  a  Home  Rule  parliament. 

One  can  understand  why  the  Coalition  campaigners  should 
have  preferred  to  say  little  about  international  affairs.  Such  dis- 
cussion would  inevitably  lead  into  the  minutiae  of  complicated 
questions  upon  which  it  was  difficult  or  futile  at  this  stage  to 
take  a  stand.  The  voters,  however,  soon  wearied  of  the  pabulum 
handed  out  to  them.  Ordinarily  the  Irish  question,  land  re- 
form, and  imperial  preference  could  have  been  depended  upon  to 
furnish  fuel  for  a  sufficiently  exciting  contest.  But  what  the 
men  and  women  who  attended  political  meetings  now  wanted  to 
know  was,  What  was  to  be  done  with  the  Kaiser?  Was  Ger- 
many to  be  made  to  pay  the  costs  of  the  war?  And  what  was  to 
be  the  Government's  policy  regarding  enemy  aliens  ?  Upon  these 
and  other  related  matters  the  premier  and  his  colleagues  were 
finally  obliged  to  speak.  At  Newcastle,  on  November  29, 
Lloyd  George  declared  for  a  "  relentlessly  just  "  peace,  the  ex- 
pulsion of  enemy  aliens,  payment  by  Germany  of  the  costs  of 
the  war  up  to  the  limits  of  her  capacity,  and  the  punishment  of 
individuals  (including  the  Kaiser)  responsible  for  the  war  and  for 
infractions  of  international  law.  There  were  plenty  of  evidences 
that  the  country  was  in  a  mood  for  far-reaching  social  and  politi- 
cal reform  ;  but  the  popular  attitude  was  rather  that  of  assuming 
that  such  reform  must  and  would  come.  The  only  questions 
on  which  the  electorate  allowed  itself  to  be  wrought  up  were 
those  relating  to  the  terms  with  German)'. 

The  Election  of  1918 :    Other  Groups.  —  It  early  became  ap- 


PARTY  POLITICS   SINCE    1914  327 

parent  that,  outside  of  Ireland,  the  voters  had  three  groups  among 
which  to  choose :  the  Coalition,  the  Independent  Liberals,  and 
the  Laborites.  Pronouncing  the  election  "  a  blunder  and  a  ca- 
lamity," the  Independent  Liberals,  led  by  Mr.  Asquith,  frankly 
avowed  their  purpose  to  maintain  their  distinct  party  character. 
A  declaration  adopted  by  the  National  Liberal  Federation  at 
its  Manchester  meeting  in  October,  and  ratified  by  the  Scottish 
Liberals'  meeting  at  Glasgow,  served  as  a  platform.  After  taking 
advanced  ground  on  industry,  agriculture,  capital  and  labor, 
housing,  taxation,  public  health,  and  other  social  topics,  this 
instrument  reaffirmed  the  belief  that  free  trade  is  vitally  neces- 
sary to  the  welfare  of  the  nation ;  and  it  urged  that  Irish  self- 
government  be  at  once  made  "  not  only  what  it  is,  a  statutory 
right,  but  an  accomplished  fact."  Throughout  the  campaign 
the  concessions  of  Lloyd  George  to  his  Unionist  colleagues  and 
supporters  were  warmly  denounced.  Imperial  preference  once 
an  accomplished  fact,  it  was  argued,  the  hated  taxes  on  food  would 
soon  follow;  Home  Rule  was  a  legal  fact  and  ought  not  to  be 
cavalierly  shelved ;  and  what  would  a  reform  of  the  House  of 
Lords  be  worth  if  carried  out  by  a  government  whose  mainstay 
was  the  Tory  party  ?  On  the  questions  which  most  interested  the 
voters,  i.e.,  those  related  to  the  conditions  of  peace,  Mr.  Asquith 
and  his  followers  could  only  take  a  common  position  with  the 
Government.  But,  fighting  against  great  odds,  they  waxed 
very  indignant  over  their  former  leader's  alleged  disregard  of  the 
interests  of  their  party,  particularly  as  seen  in  his  approval  of 
the  putting  up  of  Coalition  candidates  against  life-long  Liberals 
and  in  constituencies  that  had  never  been  anything  other  than 
Liberal. 

The  campaign  derived  no  small  share  of  its  interest  from  the 
activities  of  the  Labor  party ;  indeed  the  Labor  campaign  was 
more  vigorous  than  that  of  any  other  group  outside  of  Ireland. 
Three  hundred  and  sixty  candidates  were  placed  in  the  field, 
as  compared  with  a  former  maximum  of  68 ;  and  a  manifesto, 
headed  "Labor's  Call  to  the  People,"  challenged  universal  atten- 
tion. The  main  points  were :  "  a  peace  of  reconciliation  and  in- 
ternational cooperation,"  with  an  international  labor  charter  as 
an  essential  part  of  the  peace  treaty ;  immediate  withdrawal  of 
the  Allied  forces  from  Russia;  self-determination  for  Ireland, 
India,  and  all  other  parts  of  the  British  Empire ;  the  restoration 
of  civil  and  industrial  liberties ;  the  complete  abolition  of  con- 
scription ;  land  nationalization ;  immediate  construction  of  a 
million  new  houses  at  the  state's  expense ;  strict  maintenance  of 


328  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

free  trade;  heavily  graduated  direct  taxation  on  capital  to  pay 
the  war  debt;  immediate  nationalization  and  democratic  con- 
trol of  mines,  railroads,  shipping,  armaments,  and  electric  power; 
abolition  of  unemployment;  a  national  minimum  wage;  uni- 
versal right  to  work  or  maintenance;  complete  adult  suffrage; 
and  equal  pay  for  women.1 

The  arguments  chiefly  employed  by  the  Coalition  leaders 
against  the  election  of  a  Labor  majority  were  that  the  party  did 
not  represent  labor  as  a  whole,  but  only  a  section  and  a  minority 
of  it,  and  that  its  leadership  was  of  pacifist  and  bolshevist 
tendencies.  Similarly,  their  arguments  against  a  Liberal  triumph 
were  that  the  Asquith  group,  being  no  more  numerous  than  the 
Liberals  supporting  the  Coalition,  had  no  right  to  pose  as  the 
Liberal  party  of  former  days,  and  that  it  was  too  barren  of  leader- 
ship and  capacity  to  be  intrusted  with  the  nation's  affairs. 

In  the  Catholic  portions  of  Ireland  the  issue  was  sharply 
drawn  between  the  Nationalists  and  the  Sinn  Feiners.  The 
former  wanted  home  rule  made  effective;  the  latter  would  be 
satisfied  with  nothing  less  than  independence.  The  campaign 
was  exciting,  and  was  attended  with  much  disorder.  The  Sinn 
Feiners,  whose  rising  strength  had  been  evidenced  in  recent 
months  by  almost  unbroken  success  in  by-elections,  decided  to 
contest  all  of  Ireland's  105  seats  except  five,  and  from  the  outset 
the  tide  obviously  flowed  in  their  favor.  As  has  been  stated, 
their  candidates  made  known  their  purpose,  in  the  event  of  elec- 
tion, to  abstain  from  attendance  at  Westminster ;  although  some 
people  felt  that  if  Labor  won  a  great  victory  it  might  make 
overtures  which  would  lead  the  Sinn  Feiners  to  take  their  seats 
with  a  view  to  cooperative  action. 

Results  of  the  Election.  —  The  campaign  came  to  a  close 
December  13  with  a  round  of  meetings  almost  up  to  pre-war 
standards,  and  on  the  following  day  the  poll  was  taken  for  a  total 
of  584  seats.  One  hundred  and  seven  candidates  had  been  re- 
turned unopposed ;  polling  for  the  fifteen  university  seats  began 
December  20 ;  and  in  one  constituency  the  poll  had  to  be  post- 
poned on  account  of  the  death  of  a  candidate.  Already  some 
four  million  voting  papers,  with  a  supply  of  envelopes  and  ballot 
boxes,  had  been  distributed  among  the  soldiers  in  the  home  camps 
and  on  the  western  front.  At  the  close  of  the  polling  in  the  con- 
stituencies, December  14,  the  ballot  boxes  were  sealed  and  depos- 
ited by  the  returning  officers  in  places  of  security,  usually  the 

1  The  party's  formal  platform  is  printed  in  P.  U.  Kellogg  and  A.  Gleason,  British 
Labour  and  the  War  (New  York,  1919),  413-417. 


PARTY  POLITICS   SINCE   1914  329 

district  police  station.  For  two  weeks  these  officers  continued 
to  receive  the  ballots  —  duly  signed  and  witnessed  —  sent  in  by 
post,  and  also  the  votes  cast  by  proxy.  The  count  took  place  on 
December  28.  No  separate  record  was  kept  of  the  votes  cast 
by  absentees,  or  by  any  other  special  group  of  electors.  But  three, 
or  four  facts  seem  fully  substantiated ;  first,  that  not  over  fifty 
per  cent  of  the  registered  electors  actually  voted ;  second,  that, 
as  the  Liberal  and  Labor  leaders  predicted,  large  numbers  of  the 
soldiers  overseas  could  not  —  at  all  events  they  did  not  —  vote ; 
third,  that,  perhaps  mainly  owing  to  the  shortness  of  time,  the 
proxy  system  was  used  sparingly ;  and  fourth,  that,  contrary  to 
the  expectation  of  most  preelection  observers,  the  women  cast 
a  heavy  vote. 

The  circumstances  were  so  unusual  that  comparisons  with 
other  elections  are  worth  little.  The  outstanding  feature  of  the 
results  was  the  complete  triumph  of  the  Coalition.  There  was 
hardly  room  for  doubt  before  the  poll  that  the  Coalition  would 
win.  But  no  one  expected  its  margin  of  success  to  be  so  wide. 
Polling  about  five  ninths  of  the  popular  vote,1  it  obtained  472 
seats  out  of  the  new  total  of  707.  The  Asquith  Liberals  fared 
badly.  The  ex-premier  was  himself  defeated  in  the  constituency 
of  East  Fife  which  had  returned  him  at  every  election  since  1886,2 
and  the  party  captured  only  26  seats.  Several  ex-ministers 
suffered  the  humiliation  of  forfeiting  their  electoral  deposits 
because  of  failing  to  poll  as  many  as  one  eighth  of  the  votes  in 
their  constituencies.  Labor  increased  its  representation,  win- 
ning 59  seats.  Yet  this  was  by  no  means  the  showing  that  had 
been  confidently  predicted  ;  and  the  three  ablest  leaders,  Ramsay 
MacDonald,  Philip  Snowden,  and  Arthur  Henderson,  were  de- 
feated. Forty-six  non-coalition  Unionists  were  elected,  and 
two  or  three  minor  groups  won  scattering  victories.  Ireland,  as 
has  been  pointed  out,  was  swept  by  the  Sinn  Feiners,  who  won 
73  seats,  while  the  Nationalists  retained  but  seven.  Before  the 
election  the  Nationalists  had  78  seats  and  the  Sinn  Feiners  six. 
The  new  parliament  contained  an  unusual  proportion  of  fresh 
blood.  Upwards  of  half  of  the  members  —  338,  to  be  exact  — 
had  not  belonged  to  the  preceding  parliament.  Two  hundred 
and  fifty,  or  more  than  one  third,  had  seen  service  in  the  war. 

1  The  popular  vote  was  as  follows :  England  and  Wales,  8,493,656  ;  Scotland, 
1,139,322;  Ireland,  1,046,042  —  total,  10,679,020.  Coalition  candidates  obtained 
approximately  5,790,000  votes  and  their  opponents  approximately  4,840,000.  The 
total  electorate  in  the  107  constituencies  in  which  members  were  returned  unopposed 
numbered  3,081,266. 

2  W.  Notestein,  "The  Career  of  Mr.  Asquith,"  in  Pol.  Sci.  Quar.,  Sept.,  1916. 


33o  GOVERNMEN  rS  OB    EUROPE 

Scrutiny  of  the  results  led  to  certain  importanl  conclusions, 
rhe  first  was  that  the  nation  indorsed  the  Coalition  Government 
which  had  brought  it  successfully  through  the  war,  approved 
the  Coalition's  peace  terms  as  Ear  as  they  bad  been  announced, 
ami  wanted  peace  negotiated  by  the  nun  at  present  in  office.  A 
second  was  that  the  people  as  a  whole  had  no  sympathy  with 
pacivism  or  bolshevism  ;  a  score  of  Labor  and  Liberal  candidates 
whose  names  had  become  associated  with  the  idea  of  a  "  nego- 
tiated "  peace  went  down  to  ignominious  defeat.  A  third  conclu- 
sion was  that  the  era  of  Liberal  rule  begun  in  1905  was  at  an  end 
-that  the  nation,  in  other  words,  had  "gone  Unionist";  not 
only  was  the  Coalition  quota  in  the  new  parliament  predomi- 
nantly Unionist  (335  Unionists,  127  Liberals,  and  10  Laborites), 
but  the  House  of  Commons  as  a  whole,  even  counting  the  non- 
participating  Sinn  Feiners,  was  Unionist  by  a  margin  of  53 
seats.  Finally,  the  results  in  Ireland  showed  that  the  situation 
in  that  country  was  the  most  critical  that  an  English  government 
had  faced  in  a  hundred  years.1 

Party  Developments  after  the  Election  of  1018.  —  Supported 
by  his  new  and  impressive  mandate,  the  premier  forthwith  re- 
constructed the  Coalition  ministry  with  a  view  to  the  tasks  ahead  ; 
seventy-seven  appointments  were  announced,2  although  the  num- 
ber of  newcomers  (ten)  was  considerably  smaller  than  the  country 
expected.  Aside  from  the  premiership,  most  of  the  important 
posts  were  assigned  to  Unionists;  and  the  war  cabinet,  which 
was  indefinitely  continued,  remained  a  predominantly  Unionist 
group.  Coalition  supporters  commonly  assumed  an  air  of  con- 
fidence toward  the  future.  But  outside  critics  and  observers 
were  agreed  in  predicting  that  the  new  Government  would  have 
a  hard  road  to  travel;  and  events  proved  the  forecast  well 
founded.  In  the  first  place,  the  ministry  had  to  take  up  an  ap- 
palling number  of  intricate  national  problems  precipitated  by  the 
war  and  by  the  imminent  return  of  peace,  not  to  mention  the 
difficult  questions,  notably  Ireland,  which  it  inherited  from  its 
predecessors.     In  the  second  place,  the  necessity  of  devoting  the 

1  Political  developments  in  the  period  of  the  election  can  be  followed  conveniently 
in  the  vveeklv  edition  of  the  London  Timrs.  The  following  articles,  selected  from 
an  extensive' periodical  literature,  are  of  interest :  S.  Webb,  "The  Coming  British 
Elections,"  in  .W;  Repub.,  Aug.  5,  [918;  Anon.,  "The  General  Elo  t  ion  in  England, 
ibid.,  Dec.  21,  1918;  J.  B.  lirth,  "Victors  and  Vanquished  at  Westminster,"  in 
For!.  Rev.,  Feb.,  1019;  C.  Masterman  et  aL,  "The  General  Election  and  After," 
in  Coniemp,  Rev.,  Feb.,  1919;  S.  Webb,  "The  New  British  1'arliament,"  in  New 
Repub.,  Jan.  25,  iqiq;   Anon.,  "Mr.  Asquith's  Defeat,"  in  N.  Y.  Nation,  Mar.  1, 

IQIQ. 

2  Isondon  Times  (Weekly  ed.),  Jan.  17,  1919.  P-  59- 


PARTY  POLITICS   SINCE   1914  331 

main  attention  for  many  months  to  the  peace  negotiations  at 
Paris  meant  a  prolonged  delay  in  domestic  legislation,  at  a  time 
when  grave  industrial  and  social  troubles  demanded  earnest  and 
concentrated  thought.  Furthermore,  the  known  divergences 
of  opinion  within  the  ministry,  and  even  within  the  cabinet, 
entailed  hesitation  and  delay ;  while  the  very  magnitude  of  the 
Government  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons,  like  the  huge 
majority  after  the  election  of  1906,  proved  a  source  of  embarrass- 
ment. Even  sooner  than  had  been  generally  predicted,  there 
were  signs  of  the  Government's  waning  popularity ;  and  pres- 
ently a  remarkable  series  of  by-elections  began  to  emphasize 
with  staccato  effect  the  drift  toward  the  elements  of  opposition. 

The  nature  and  identity  of  the  Opposition  (in  the  technical 
meaning  of  the  term)  was,  indeed,  a  matter  of  much  curiosity 
when  the  new  parliament  assembled.  Next  to  the  Government, 
Labor  had  the  largest  number  of  seats,  and  in  strict  adherence 
to  custom,  this  would  have  meant  the  right  to  occupy  the  Front 
Opposition  Bench.  The  Independent  Liberals,  however,  could 
not  reconcile  themselves  to  such  an  arrangement,  and  the  out- 
come was  a  compromise  whereby  the  official  leaders  of  both  par- 
ties, with  certain  of  their  respective  colleagues,  regularly  occupied 
that  strategic  position.  The  two  groups  were  not  formally  allied. 
But  circumstances  made  virtual  allies  of  them ;  and,  although 
weak  numerically,  they  kept  up  a  flow  of  criticism  which  the 
Government  could  never  entirely  ignore. 

So  far  as  alignments  within  Parliament  go,  this  situation  ob- 
tains at  the  date  when  these  pages  are  written.  How  long  it 
will  last,  and  what  will  supersede  it,  are,  however,  questions  of 
deep  and  nation-wide  interest;  and  certain  efforts  and  tenden- 
cies may  be  cited  as  indicating  lines  upon  which  the  party  system 
may  again  be  stabilized.  The  first  of  these  is  the  attempt  to 
hold  Liberalism  together  and  restore  the  party  to  its  former  place 
as  a  distinct  force  in  politics.  At  the  first  meeting  of  the  executive 
committee  of  the  National  Liberal  Federation  following  the  elec- 
tion of  1 91 8  ex-Premier  Asquith  declared  it  of  the  highest  national 
importance  that  the  Liberal  party  should  preserve  its  identity 
and  its  independent  activity,  and  urged  that  the  Liberal  organiza- 
tions throughout  the  country  be  kept  alive.1  In  line  with  this 
admonition  the  non-coalition  Liberal  group  in  Parliament  chose 
a  leader  in  the  person  of  Sir  Donald  McLean  and  entered  jointly 
with  Labor,  as  has  been  stated,  upon  the  role  of  the  Opposition ; 
while  successive  conferences  and  dinners,  calling  forth  pro- 
1  Lotidon  Times  (Weekly  ed.),  Jan.  24,  iqi8,  p.  90. 


332  gov i.kx.M i:\rs  of  kiroi'i; 

nouncements  upon  policy  both  from  Mr.  Asquith  (who  remained 
the  real  Leader)  and  from  other  authoritative  spokesmeD  served 

to  keep  up  party  morale  throughout  the  country.  In  February, 
ii)2o,  Mr.  Asquith  himself  reappeared  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
sitting  now  for  Paisley  instead  of  his  old  constituency  of  East 
Fife.  This  event,  together  with  notable  gains  of  the  Independent 
Liberals  in  various  other  by-elections,  led  to  a  wide  demand  as  the 
summer  of  1020  dawned  for  a  full  restoration  of  party  unity- 
in  short,  for  the  secession  of  all  Liberals  from  the  Coalition,  and 
therefore  for  the  termination  of  the  Coalition  itself.  It  was 
argued  that  the  Coalition  was  a  combination  of  distinct  and  op- 
posing parties,  formed  under  the  exceptional  circumstances  of 
war  and  continued  in  1918  for  a  particular  purpose,  i.e.,  the 
making  of  the  peace  ;  that  the  combination  was,  by  its  very  na- 
ture, temporary  and  provisional;  that  its  objects  had  now  been 
attained ;  that  it  must  forthwith  be  broken  up  unless  it  were  to 
be  permitted  to  shrink  up  into  a  mere  cabal  serving  narrow  and 
personal  interests  ;  that,  in  any  case,  to  convert  it  into  a  perma- 
nent instrument  of  government  would  mean  completely  to  sub- 
vert its  original  and  only  proper  purpose.  It  was  urged,  too,  that 
the  existing  situation  tended  to  develop  a  real  antagonism  be- 
tween Coalition  Liberals  and  Independent  Liberals.  The  two 
elements  were  regularly  putting  up  candidates  one  against  the 
other  in  the  constituencies  ;  and  —  since  the  party  machinery  in 
the  majority  of  constituencies  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Independ- 
ents —  the  Coalition  elements  were  being  tempted  to  create  party 
machinery  of  their  own,  although  the  effect  would  certainly  be 
to  stir  up  fresh  animosities  and  to  add  perceptibly  to  the  difficul- 
ties of  reunion. 

A  second  important  development  of  the  period  was  the  re- 
organization of  the  Labor  party,  carried  out  with  a  view  to  giving 
the  party  a  broader  constituency  and  securing  for  it  greater  weight 
in  the  political  life  of  the  reconstruction  era,  and  based  on  a  new 
constitution  adopted  at  a  party  conference  at  London  in  February, 
1918.  Hitherto  the  party  was  a  pure  federation  of  trade  unions, 
local  labor  parties,  and  socialist  and  cooperative  societies;  men 
became  members  of  it  solely  by  virtue  of  belonging  to  one  or 
another  of  these  local  organizations.  But  henceforth,  in  addition 
to  these  groups,  there  were  to  be  local  branches  of  the  party, 
formed  and  kept  up  in  the  constituencies  in  the  manner  of  local 
branches  of  other  parties,  and  offering  an  opportunity  for  persons 
who  did  not  belong,  and  perhaps  did  not  care  to  belong,  to  trade 
unions  or  socialist  societies  to  acquire  and  hold   Labor  party 


PARTY  POLITICS   SINCE   1914  333 

membership.  Another  innovation  was  the  formal  recognition  of 
"  all  producers  by  hand  or  by  brain,"  without  distinction  of  class 
or  occupation,  as  desirable  adherents  of  the  party  and  as  having 
claims  upon  the  party's  protection.  Finally,  some  changes  were 
made  in  the  party  machinery,  and  it  was  specially  enjoined  that 
before  every  general  election  the  party  program  should  be  voted 
by  the  party  conference  and  that  every  candidate  bearing  the 
party's  name  should  unequivocally  declare  his  full  allegiance  to 
the  principles  and  policies  enunciated. 

Labor  won  fewer  seats  at  the  general  election  of  191 8  than  its 
adherents  hoped  for ;  but  during  the  ensuing  year  and  a  half  the 
party  increased  its  hold  throughout  the  country  to  such  a  degree 
that  shrewd  political  observers  began  to  talk  about  the  possibility 
of  a  Labor  government.  In  the  twelve  by-elections  of  1919  in 
which  Labor  candidates  appeared,  113,783  Labor  votes  were 
polled,  against  104,485  polled  by  candidates  supporting  the  Coali- 
tion, and  three  new  seats  were  won.  Furthermore,  analysis  of 
the  votes  showed  that  the  party  was  gaining  ground,  not  only  in 
industrial  districts,  but  in  middle-class  constituencies,  and  that 
it  bade  fair  to  profit  more  largely  by  the  extension  of  the  suffrage 
in  1 91 8  than  any  other  party.  The  party  was  weak  in  parlia- 
mentary leadership  ;  its  organization  was  still  somewhat  chaotic  ; 
and  it  contained  -both  reactionary  and  progressive  elements. 
But  its  program  was  at  most  points  more  definite  than  that  of 
any  of  its  competitors ;  its  tremendous  propaganda  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  nationalization  of  the  means  of  production  and 
distribution  made  a  peculiar  appeal  under  the  unsettled  conditions 
prevailing  after  the  war;  and  there  was  a  distinct  possibility 
that  its  impressive  leftward  movement  might  at  any  time  sweep 
along  with  it  sufficient  numbers  of  people  to  bring  it  into  a  con- 
trolling position.1 

1  The  best  account  of  the  English  labor  movement  during  the  war,  with  numerous 
important  documents,  is  P.  U.  Kellogg  and  A.  Gleason,  British  Labour  and  the  War 
(New  York,  1918).  ,  A  briefer  but  useful  survey  is  E.  M.  Friedman,  Labor  and  Re- 
construction in  Europe  (New  York,  1919).  Among  source  materials  the  most  val- 
uable is  the  Labour  Year  Book,  of  which  there  were  issues  for  1916  and  iqiq.  Two 
important  articles  are  A.  W.  Humphrey,  "The  British  Labor  Movement  and  the 
War,"  in  Polit.  Sci.  Quar.,  Mar.,  191 7,  and  C.  H.  Northcott,  "The  Organization  of 
Labor  in  War  Time  in  Great  Britain,"  ibid.,  June,  191 7.  Systematic  discussion 
of  the  political  ideas,  aims,  and  methods  of  organized  labor  in  the  new  era  following 
the  war  include  A.  Henderson,  The  Aims  of  Labour  (London,  1918) ;  G.  D.  H.  Cole, 
Labour  in  the  Commonwealth  (New  York,  1919) ;  R.  Lane  [Norman  Angell],  The 
British  Revolution  and  the  American  Democracy  (New  York,  1919);  S._  G.  Hobson, 
National  Guilds  and  the  State  (London,  1920).  Among  magazine  articles  may  be 
mentioned  A.  Henderson,  "The  Outlook  for  Labour,"  in  Contemp.  Rev.,  Feb.,  1918; 
A.  G.  Gardiner,  "Mr.  Henderson  and  the  Labor  Movement,"  in  Atlanl.  Month., 


334  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

The  third  development  that  can  be  mentioned  is  the  movement 
to  convert  the  Coalition  into  a  permanent  party.  It  is  impossible 
to  determine  when  and  by  whom  this  proposal  was  first  made; 
there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  it  was  in  the  mind  of  any  one  when 
the  combination  was  originally  formed,  and  nothing  was  said 
about  it  publicly  until  after  the  armistice.  But  in  May,  iqio, 
an  informal  committee  of  new  Coalition  members  in  the  House  of 
Commons  assumed  the  task  of  preparing  a  plan  for  a  permanent 
Center  party,  to  be  composed  of  moderate  yel  progressive  men  — 
Coalition  Liberals  and  liberal-minded  Unionists  —  with  a  view 
specially  to  opposing  the  growing  political  power  of  Labor.1 
During  the  summer  several  leading  ministers  declared  for  the 
plan,  and  by  the  end  of  the  year  both  the  premier  and  the  nomi- 
nal Unionist  leader, -Mr.  Law.  were  known  to  favor  it.  Early  in 
1920  an  announcement  of  the  consummation  of  the  scheme  was 
for  a  time  almost  daily  expected.  For  one  reason  or  another, 
however  —  perhaps  because  the  Coalition  heads  preferred  to 
await  a  more  favorable  opportunity  (e.g.,  a  national  election), 
perhaps  because  their  minds  were  not  fully  made  up  on  the  sub- 
ject —  no  overt  step  has  been  taken  to  the  date  of  writing. 

Naturally,  the  proposal  aroused  keen  interest  among  all 
political  elements,  for  its  realization  might  not  only  bring  the 
party  alignments  of  former  years  to  a  definite  end  but  recast  the 
entire  party  system  on  a  new  and  lasting  basis.  The  Independent 
Liberals  argued  that  the  time  was  ripe  for  a  return  to  the  party 
separateness  of  pre-war  days.  They  pointed  to  the  diminished 
popularity  of  the  Coalition  as  shown  by  the  Independent  Liberal 
and  Labor  victories  in  the  by-elections,  and  contended  that  Lib- 
eral support  was  fast  falling  away,  that  so  far  as  the  country  at 
large  was  concerned  the  Coalition  would  soon  be  nothing  more 
than  the  Unionist  party,  and  that  only  a  formal  dissolution  of 
the  ministerial  combination  was  necessary  to  revive  the  party 
system  as  it  was  before  the  war.  The  Coalition  leaders,  on  the 
other  hand,  urged  that  the  Coalition  itself  ought  to  be  main- 
tained for  yet  a  good  while ;  that  the  old  party  system  was  obso- 

Aug.,  1918;  G.  D.  II.  ('"],■,  "Recenl  Developments  in  the  British  Labour  Move- 
,."  in  Amer.  Econ.  Rev.,  Sept.,  roiS;  S.  Brooks,  "The  British  Labour  Out- 
look," in  X.  Amer.  Rev.,  Feb.,  1919;  F.  J.  ('.  Hearnshaw,  "The  Labour  Party  at  the 
Crossings,"  in  Fort.  Rev.,  Mar.',  1919;  R.  Roberts,  "England  in  Revolution,"  in 
N.  1  .  Nation,  May  17,1919;  J.  R.  MacDonald,  "The  Independent  Labour  Party," 
ibid.,  June  14,  1919;  and  G.  D.  H.  Cole,  "  British  Labour  Strategy,"  ibid.,  Oct.  18, 
1919.  Mention  may  be  made  also  of  M.  Phillips  et  al.,  Women  and  the  Labour 
Party  I  New  ¥01 

1  Other  names  eventually  suggested  for  the  new  parly  were  National  Reform, 
National  Democrat,  and  Progressive. 


PARTY   POLITICS   SINCE   1914  335 

lete ;  that  the  future  cleavage  would  be  primarily  between  mod- 
erates of  both  of  the  older  major  parties  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
radical  forces  of  labor  and  socialism  on  the  other ;  and  they 
strongly  intimated  the  naturalness,  and  indeed  the  necessity, 
of  a  permanent  fusion  of  the  moderate  Unionist  and  Liberal 
elements. 

The  Coalition  Government,  backed  by  a  huge  majority  of 
at  least  nominal  supporters,  was  in  a  position  to  go  on  indefi- 
nitely ;  and  this  it  showed  a  disposition  to  do,  notwithstanding  a 
defeat  in  the  House  of  Commons  late  in  191 9  which  in  ordinary 
times  would  have  led  to  the  retirement  of  the  ministry,  and  not- 
withstanding keen  and  growing  criticism  based  on  charges  of 
dilatoriness,  lack  of  policy,  extravagance,  evasion  of  constitu- 
tional rules,  and  tendencies  to  autocracy.  So  unstable  was  the 
situation,  however,  that  a  national  election  might  be  precipitated 
almost  over  night ;  and  no  man  living  could  foretell  the  course 
that,  in  such  an  event,  party  organization  and  activity  would 
take.1 

1  The  drift  of  English  party  politics  after  the  election  of  1918  can  be  followed 
conveniently  in  the  weekly  editions  of  the  London  Times  and  the  Manchester  Guar- 
dian, although  allowance  must  be  made  for  the  critical  attitude  of  both  publica- 
tions toward  the  Coalition  Government.  See  also  Anon.,  "The  Leadership  of  the 
English  Liberals,"  in  New  Re  pub.,  Feb.  15,  1919;  J.  R.  MacDonald,  "Great  Brit- 
ain's Political  Chaos,"  in  N.  Y.  Nation,  Nov.  8,  1919;  W.  P.  Crozier,  "Political 
Portents  in  England,"  in  New  Re  pub.,  May  31,  1919;  Anon.,  "The  Political  Out- 
look in  England,"  ibid.,  Jan.  14,  1920;  S.  Webb,  "The  Portent  of  Spen  Valley," 
ibid.,  Feb.  4,  1920 ;  and  J.  R.  MacDonald,  "  Drifting  toward  a  Labor  Government," 
in  N.  Y.  Nation, .Feb.  28,  1920. 


CHAPTER    XIX 

GREATER   BRITAIN:  THE    SELF-GOVERNING    COLONIES 

The  Tradition  of  Political  Freedom.  —  Our  description  of  the 
British  political  system  cannot  justly  be  brought  to  a  close  with- 
out a  word  of  comment  on  the  governmental  institutions  and  prob- 
lems of  the  British  Empire.  After  all,  the  United  Kingdom,  while 
in  most  respects  separate  and  self-contained,  is  only  part  of  a 
political  dominion  that  extends  over  almost  one  fourth  of  the 
earth's  habitable  surface,  and  that  controls  the  destinies  of  more 
than  one  fourth  of  the  world's  population.  Relatively,  the 
Roman  Empire  was  a  more  colossal  power,  for  in  the  days  of 
its  splendor  it  embraced  practically  the  entire  civilized  world. 
Measured  absolutely,  however,  the  British  Empire  transcends 
all  political  creations  of  both  past  and  present  times. 

Speaking  broadly,  the  peoples  living  under  the  British  flag 
to-day  are  as  prosperous,  as  contented,  as  free,  and  as  jealous 
of  their  rights  as  any  other  great  group  of  peoples  in  the  world. 
They  dwell  in  every  clime ;  they  belong  to  almost  every  race ; 
they  represent  every  conceivable  stage  of  culture;  they  have 
every  possible  economic  interest ;  the  proportion  of  people  of 
European  stock  is  hardly  greater  than  it  was  a  century  and  a 
half  ago.  Yet  the  ties  that  hold  the  Empire  together  have 
been  proved  stronger  than  even  the  optimists,  in  pre-war  days, 
supposed  them  to  be.  The  reasons  why  they  are  so  cannot  be 
considered  here.  They  run  the  gamut  of  blood  relationship, 
cultural  connections,  trade  and  business  advantages,  desire  for 
protection,  and  what  not.  But  at  bottom  is  the  cardinal  fact 
that,  on  the  whole,  the  British  Empire  has  been,  in  the  past 
hundred  years,  wisely,  and  even  beneficently,  governed.  Great 
outlying  dependencies  have  been  transformed  into  what  are  to 
all  intents  and  purposes  free  states;  peoples  upon  whom  it  has 
not  Ik  en  deemed  safe  or  wise  to  confer  full  rights  of  self-govern- 
ment have  been  given  partial  rights;  peoples  in  a  still  more  ba<  It- 
ward  condition  have  been  governed  firmly  but  honestly,  and  usu- 
ally to  their  own  great  advantage,  by  English  administrators. 

33d 


GREATER  BRITAIN  337 

From  the  beginning  England,  in  contrast  with  other  expanding 
nations,  permitted  her  colonists  to  have  a  voice  in  their  own 
government ;  and  yet  it  was  only  by  bitter  experience  that  even 
she  was  made  to  see  that  colonial  autonomy,  far  from  being 
inconsistent  with  true  imperial  power,  may  be  made  its  surest 
basis.     It  is  interesting  to  note  what  a  modern  scholar,  who  writes 
from  the   English   standpoint,   has   to   say  upon   this  subject. 
"  When  the  outpouring  of  Europe  into  the  rest  of  the  world 
began,  the  British  peoples  alone  had  the  habit  and  instinct  of 
self-government  in  their  very  blood  and  bones.     And  the  result 
was  that  wherever  they  went,  they  carried  self-government  with 
them.  ...  In  the  eighteenth  century,  and  even  in  the  middle 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  Britain  herself  and  the  young  nations 
that  had  sprung  from  her  loins  were  almost  the  only  free  states 
existing  in  the  world.     It  was  because  they  were  free  that  they 
throve  so  greatly.     They  expanded  on  their  own  account,  they 
threw  out  fresh  settlements  into  the  empty  lands  wherein  they 
were  planted,  often  against  the  wish  of  the  mother  country.     And 
this  spontaneous  growth  of  vigorous  free  communities  has  been 
one  of  the  principal  causes  of  the  immense  extension  of  the  British 
Empire.     Now  one  of  the  results  of  the  universal  existence  of 
self-governing  rights  in  the  British  colonies  was  that  the  colonists 
were  far  more  prompt  to  resent  and  resist  any  improper  exercise 
of  authority  by  the  mother  country  than  were  the  settlers  in  the 
colonies  of  other  countries,  which  had  no  self-governing  rights 
at  all.     It  was  this  independent  spirit,  nurtured  by  self-govern- 
ment, which  led  to  the  revolt  of  the  American  colonies  in  1 775,  and 
to  the  foundation  of  the  United  States  as  an  independent  nation. 
In  that  great  controversy  an  immensely  important  question  was 
raised,  which  was  new  to  human  history.     It  was  the  question 
whether  unity  could  be  combined  with  the  highest  degree  of 
freedom ;  whether  it  was  possible  to  create  a  sort  of  fellowship  or 
brotherhood  of  free  communities,  in  which  each  should  be  master 
of  its  own  destinies,  and  yet  all  combine  for  common  interests. 
But  the  question  (being  so  new)  was  not  understood  on  either 
side  of  the  Atlantic.     Naturally,  Britain  thought  most  of  the 
need  of  maintaining  unity ;  she  thought  it  unfair  that  the  whole 
burden  of  the  common  defense  should  fall  upon  her,  and  she 
committed  many  foolish  blunders  in  trying  to  enforce  her  view. 
Equally  naturally,  the  colonists  thought  primarily  of  their  own 
self-governing  rights,  which  they  very  justly  demanded  should 
be  increased  rather  than  restricted.     The  result  was  the  unhappy 
war,  which  broke  up  the  only  family  of  free  nations  that  had 


338  GOYKRNMKNTS   ()!•'    EUROPE 

yet  existed  in  the  world,  and  caused  a  most  unfortunate  aliena- 
tion between  them,  whereby  the  cause  of  liberty  in  the  world 
was  greatly  weakened.  Britain  Learned  many  valuable  les 
from  the  American  Revolution.  In  the  new  Empire  which  she 
began  to  build  up  as  soon  as  the  old  one  was  lost,  it  might  have 
expected  thai  she  would  have  fought  shy  of  those  principles 
of  self-government  which  no  other  state  had  ever  tried  to  apply 
in  its  oversea  dominions,  and  which  seemed  to  have  led  (from  the 
imperialistic  point  of  view)  to  such  disastrous  results  in  America. 
Hut  she  did  not  do  so ;  the  habits  of  self-government  were  too 
deeply  rooted  in  her  sons  to  make  it  possible  for  her  to  deny 
them  self-governing  rights  in  their  new  homes.  On  the  contrary, 
she  learnt,  during  the  nineteenth  century,  to  welcome  and  facili- 
tate every  expansion  of  their  freedom,  and  she  gradually  felt 
her  way  towards  a  means  of  realizing  a  partnership  of  free  peoples 
whereby  freedom  should  be  combined  with  unity.  Its  success 
(although  it  must  still  undergo  much  development)  has  been 
strikingly  shown  in  the  Great  War."  1 

The  Self-Governing  Dominions :  General  Features.  —  From 
the  point  of  view  of  their  political  status,  the  far-flung  lands  com- 
posing the  British  Empire  to-day  —  aside  from  the  United 
Kingdom  itself  —  fall  into  four  main  groups  :  (i)  the  self-govern- 
ing dominions,  (2)  the  crown  colonies,  (3)  the  protectorates,  and 
(4)  India,  which,  while  partaking  of  the  characteristics  of  a  crown 
colony  and  of  a  protectorate,  is  neither,  but  is  rather  a  "  depend- 
ent empire,"  with  internal  organization  and  external  relationships 
peculiar  to  itself.  The  self-governing  dominions  are  five  in 
number :  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  the  Commonwealth  of  Aus- 
tralia, the  Union  of  South  Africa,  the  Dominion  of  New  Zealand, 
and  the  Colony  of  Newfoundland.  Their  aggregate  area  in 
1914  was  7.500.000  square  miles,  or  a  little  more  than  one  half 
of  the  entire  Empire,  including  India —  more  than  three  fourths, 
if  India  be  left  out  of  the  reckoning.  Their  total  white  popula- 
tion was  about  15.000,000,  as  compared  with  46.000,000  in  the 
United  Kingdom. 

The  student  of  government  discerns  at  a  glance  two  striking 
facts  about  these  five  great  regions.  The  first  is  that,  although 
they  are  parts  of  what  custom  compels  us  erroneously  to  call 
an  empire,  they  arc,  for  most  purposes,  independent  nations. 
The  second  is  that  all  are.  in  everything  but  name,  republics, 

with  parliaments  elected  on  democratic  suffrages  and   with 
responsible  executives  similar  to  the  working  executive  in  the 

1  R.  Muir,  Character  of  I  lie  British  Empire  (London,  1917),  9-12. 


GREATER  BRITAIN  339 

mother  country.  They  have  their  own  flags,  their  own  armies, 
their  own  navies  ;  they  amend  their  own  constitutions  and  make 
their  own  laws,  with  a  minimum  of  interference  from  London ; 
they  appoint  their  own  officers  (except  the  governors-general, 
whose  functions  are  almost  as  purely  formal  as  those  of  the  Eng- 
lish king)  ;  they  levy  their  own  taxes ;  they  freely  impose  pro- 
tective duties  on  imports  from  the  mother  country  and  from  other 
parts  of  the  Empire ;  they  make  no  compulsory  financial  con- 
tributions to  the  mother  country,  not  even  to  help  pay  the  in- 
terest on  indebtedness  incurred  generations  ago  in  protecting 
these  very  colonial  possessions ;  they  are  not  required  to  con- 
tribute to  the  upkeep  of  the  navy,  which  is  still  the  great  defender 
of  them  all;  although  technically  "at  war"  whenever  the 
United  Kingdom  is  in  that  state,  they  are  not  obliged  to  send  a 
man  or  a  ship  or  a  shilling.  In  short,  their  purely  political  con- 
nection with  the  mother  country  is  extremely  slight.  Almost  the 
only  tangible  evidence  of  it  is  their  inability  to  send  ministers 
and  consuls  of  their  own  to  foreign  countries  and  to  pursue  an 
independent  foreign  policy.  The  right  of  the  crown  to  disallow 
their  legislative  acts,1  the  right  of  Parliament  to  legislate  for 
them,2  and  even  the  right  of  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the 
Privy  Council  to  hear  appeals  from  their  courts,3  are  less  frequently 
exercised  as  time  goes  on.  Indeed,  of  late  the  dominions  have 
been  allowed  to  negotiate  separate  commercial  treaties  and  other 
international  agreements ;  for  example,  the  Canadian-French 
commercial  treaty  of  1907  was  negotiated  by  plenipotentiaries 
named  by  the  Dominion  government,  although  furnished  with 
credentials  from  the  king-in-council.  In  view  of  this  increased 
control  over  foreign  affairs,  Canada,  in  1909,  established  a  new 
"  ministry  of  external  relations."  4 

The  Dominion  of  Canada.  —  Having  observed  these  facts 
about  the  self-governing  dominions  in  general,  we  may  look  a 
little  more  closely  into  the  form  and  character  of  government  in 

1  Legally,  the  crown,  acting  on  the  advice  of  the  ministers  and  through  the  agency 
of  the  governor-general,  can  disallow  any  colonial  legislation.  The  power  is  so 
seldom  exercised  that  the  colonial  parliaments  rarely  have  an)'  practical  regard  for 
it  in  the  enactment  of  laws.  Since  1867,  for  example,  only  six  or  eight  Canadian 
acts  have  been  disallowed. 

2  Since  1778  the  recognized  principle  has  been  that  Parliament  has  a  right  to 
enact  measures  of  any  sort  relating  to  the  colonies  except  bills  imposing  taxes  for 
the  purpose  of  revenue.  No  parliamentary  act  applies  to  the  colonies  unless  it  is 
so  specified  in  the  measure ;   and  very  few  acts  do  so  apply. 

3  See  p.  218. 

4  A  good  brief  account  of  the  political  development  of  the  self-governing  colonies 
is  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II,  Chap.  lv.  See  also  A.  J.  Herbertson  and  O.  J. 
Howard,  The  Oxford  Survey  of  the  British  Empire  (Oxford,  1914). 


340  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

three  of  the  principal  countries,  Canada,  Australia,  and  South 
Vfrica.  Canada  is  of  special  interest,  not  only  because  in  both 
area  and  population  it  is  the  greatesl  of  the  dominions,  but  al  o 
because  of  its  nearness  to,  and  its  close  relations  with,  the  United 
States.  As  might  be  expected,  its  governmental  system  affords 
many  points  of  comparison  and  contrast  with  our  own.  The 
very  first  fact  to  be  noted,  indeed,  is  that,  like  the  United  Stati 
hut  unlike  England,  Canada  is  organized  on  a  federal  plan  ;    that 

is.  the  powers  and  functions  of  government  are  divided  by  a  writ- 
ten constitution  between  a  central  or  national  government  on  the 
hand  and  a  number  of  regional  or  provincial  governments  on 
the  other.  In  its  present  form  the  Canadian  confederation  dates 
from  1867,  when,  at  the  request  of  the  colonists  themselves,  the 
parliament  at  London  passed  the  British  North  America  Act 
bringing  together  four  formerly  separate  colonies  —  Quebec, 
Ontario,  New  Brunswick,  and  Nova  Scotia  —  in  the  new  "  Do- 
minion of  Canada."  As  population  spread  westward  in  later 
decades  other  provinces  were  created  by  the  Canadian  parlia- 
ment, very  much  as  our  own  western  states  were  admitted  to 
the  Union  by  Congress;  so  that  since  1905  the  Dominion  has 
consisted  of  nine  provinces,  besides  the  Yukon  and  Northwest 
territories. 

Long  before  the  act  of  union  the  original  states  obtained  repre- 
sentative government;  and  after  1840  the  most  advanced  ones 
also  got  responsible  government,  i.e.,  a  system  under  which  the 
ministries  became  responsible,  as  the  ministry  is  in  England,  to 
the  elected  legislature.  There  was,  therefore,  no  question  when 
the  plans  for  the  new  federation  were  drawn  up  as  to  the  general 
form  which  the  government  should  take.  The  English  system 
served  as  the  model ;  the  American  was  drawn  upon  at  certain 
points  to  round  out  the  scheme,  and  especially  to  harmonize 
it  with  the  federal  principle.  The  essential  features  of  the 
Dominion  government  can  be  presented  briefly.  The  formal 
executive  head  is  the  governor-general,  who  is  appointed  in  Lon- 
don, nominally  by  the  king,  but  actually  by  the  cabinet,  and 
usually  for  five  years.  To  him  it  falls  to  play  substantially  the 
role  played  in  the  mother  country  by  the  sovereign,  with  the  dif- 
ference that  certain  powers,  e.g.,  the  veto,  which  have  become 
obsolete  in  the  royal  hands  are  sometimes,  although  seldom, 
exercised  by  the  colonial  dignitary.  The  working  executive 
is  the  group  of  men  —  23  in  number,  in  191 7  —  comprising  tech- 
nically the  privy  council,  but  actually  the  cabinet,  whose  members 
get  their  places  in  substantially  the  same  way  that  English  cabinet 


GREATER   BRITAIN  341 

officers  get  theirs ;  that  is,  the  governor-general  designates  as 
premier  the  recognized  leader  of  the  majority  party  in  the  popular 
branch  of  Parliament,  and  the  premier  selects  his  colleagues  and 
assigns  them  to  their  posts.  Party  solidarity,  membership  and 
leadership  in  Parliament,  collective  responsibility  to  the  popular 
branch  of  Parliament,  absence  of  the  titular  executive  from  cabi- 
net meetings,  the  leadership  of  the  premier,  even  the  purely 
customary  basis  on  which  the  cabinet  system  rests  —  all  are 
exactly  as  in  England ;  and  there  are  two  great  opposing  parties, 
Liberal  and  Conservative,  which  facilitate  the  working  of  the 
system,  just  as  in  the  motherland. 

Parliament  consists  of  two  houses,  a  Senate  and  a  House  of 
Commons.  The  Senate  contains  96  members,  Quebec  and 
Ontario  having  24  each,  Nova  Scotia  and  New  Brunswick  10 
each,  and  other  provinces  lesser  quotas,  to  as  low  as  three,  in 
approximate  proportion  to  population.  It  was  suggested  when 
the  plan  of  government  was  in  preparation  that  the  senators 
should  be  elected  by  the  people.  But,  mainly  from  fear  that 
an  elected  upper  house  would  encroach  on  the  powers  of  the  lower 
house,  it  was  decided  to  give  the  power  to  appoint  into  the  hands 
of  the  governor-general  (in  effect,  the  cabinet).  Appointment  is 
for  life,  although  there  are  several  ways,  besides  death  and  resig- 
nation, by  which  seats  may  be  voluntarily  or  involuntarily 
vacated.  Except  for  the  familiar  requirement  that  money  bills 
shall  be  first  considered  in  the  lower  chamber,  the  Senate  has 
identical  powers  and  functions  with  the  House  of  Commons. 
Ordinarily,  however,  the  chamber  has  been  content  to  play  the 
role  of  a  reasonably  diligent  but  unambitious  revising  body. 

The  House  of  Commons,  like  its  counterpart  in  the  mother 
country,  consists  of  representatives  chosen  by  the  people  in  dis- 
tricts, with  the  difference  that  in  Canada  there  is,  as  in  the  United 
States,  a  reapportionment  following  every  decennial  census.  To 
prevent  the  total  membership  from  becoming  too  large,  Quebec's 
quota  (65)  is  stationary,  and  the  quotas  of  all  other  provinces 
are  increased  or  diminished  so  as  to  be  in  proper  proportion  to  it. 
The  allotment  of  1914  gave  Ontario  82  seats,  Nova  Scotia  and 
Saskatchewan  16  each,  and  other  provinces  lesser  numbers,  the 
total  being  234.  As  in  the  United  States,  the  suffrage  is  regulated 
by  the  state  legislatures,  and  is,  therefore,  not  uniform.  In 
seven  of  the  nine  provinces  manhood  suffrage  prevails ;  in  the 
other  two  —  Nova  Scotia  and  Quebec  —  there  are  small  property 
or  income  qualifications.  The  maximum  term  is,  as  in  England, 
five  years ;   but  dissolutions  take  place  with  sufficient  frequency 


GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

to  reduce  the  average  lifetime  of  a  parliament  to  about  four  years. 
The  House  of  Commons  is  easily  the  controlling  branch  of  the 
legislature.  All  finance  l>ills  originate  there;  mosl  important 
measures  of  other  kinds  arc  first  submitted  to  it  ;  it  is  the  forum 
for  political  controversy^  the  chamber  in  which  reputations  are 
made  and  great  policies  determined.  And  it  must  be  observed 
that  the  powers  of  the  central  government  are  in  most  directions 
greater  than  those  of  the  federal  government  of  the  United  States. 
Sixteen  clauses  of  the  North  America  Act  define  the  powers  of 
the  provinces;  twenty-nine  are  taken  up  with  a  description  of 
those  to  he  exercised  by  the  federal  parliament;  furthermore, 
whereas  in  the  United  States  the  powers  of  the  nation  arc  limited 
and  enumerated  and  those  of  the  states  broad  and  residual,  in 
Canada  all  powers  not  exclusively  vested  in  the  provinces  belong 
to  the  government  at  Ottawa. 

Of  the  governments  of  the  provinces  it  is  impossible  t<>  speak, 
save  to  say  that  the  nominal  executive  is  a  lieutenant-governor 
appointed  by  the  governor-general  (in  effect,  the  Dominion  cabi- 
net) for  five  years ;  that  this  official  has  a  cabinet  council  of 
four  or  five  members  which,  under  the  leadership  of  a  premier, 
comprises  the  working,  responsible  executive ;  that  the  legisla- 
tures, elected  in  all  cases  except  two  by  manhood  suffrage,  con- 
sist also  in  all  cases  except  two  of  but  one  house ;  that  the 
cabinet  system  operates  substantially  as  in  the  national  govern- 
ment; and  that,  in  short,  the  organization  of  a  government  at 
a  provincial  capital  is  modeled  as  closely  upon  the  government  at 
Ottawa  as  differing  conditions  permit.  Each  of  the  provinces  has 
its  own  code  for  the  organization  and  administration  of  municipal 
affairs  in  counties,  villages,  towns,  and  cities.  The  main  point  of 
difference  from  the  English  local  government  system  is  the  larger 
number  of  officers  elected  directly  by  the  people.1 

1  The  best  one-volume  account  of  the  Canadian  governmenl  is  E.  Porritt,  Evolu- 
tion of  tli'-  Dominion  of  Canada  (Yonkers,  1918).  An  excellent  presentation  of  the 
subject  will  be  found  in  A.  B.  Keith,  Responsible  Government  in  //:<■  Dominions, 
3  vols.  (Oxford,  1912)  passinr.  The  important  ((institutional  documents  are  in 
II.  E.  Egerton  and  \Y.  L.  Grant,  Canadian  Constitutional  Development  (London, 
1907).  There  is  an  outline  in  A.  I'.  Poley,  Federal  Systems  of  the  United  Stales  mid 
the  British  Empire  (Boston,  1913)1  Chaps,  xv-xxiii;  and  a  moderately  successful 
exposition  by  a  Canadian  jurist  is  W.  R.  Riddell,  Constitution  of  Canada  in  its 
History  and  Practical  Work':  Haven,  1917).     Other  important  works  are: 

A.  H.  F.  Lefroy,  Canada's  Federal  Sy  tern  (Toronto,  [9]  ;  J.  E.  C.  Munro,  The 
Constitution  of  Canada  (Cambridgi  md  W.  II.  I'.  (  lement,  Law  of  the  Cana- 

dian Constitution  (3d  ed.,  London,  101.;).     A.  Todd,  Parliamentary  Government  in 
'olonies  (2d  ed.,  London  [though  old,  can  In-  used  t<>  advantage. 

The  history  and  working  of  tin-  cabinel  system  is  authoritatively  desi  ribed  in  A. 
Shortt,  "Relation  between  the  Legislative  and  Executive  Branches  of  the  Canadian 


GREATER   BRITAIN  343 

The  Commonwealth  of  Australia.  — The  history  of  Australia 
has  been  said  to  be  as  monotonous  as  the  country's  scenery. 
For  students  of  political  science,  and  of  public  affairs,  however, 
the  building  of  the  great  federal  government  which  operates  to- 
day in  the  remote  island-continent  is  filled  with  interest  and 
instructiveness.  Nowhere  in  the  world  has  English  political 
genius  had  freer  scope  in  the  creation  of  a  nation  on  virgin  soil ; 
nowhere  in  the  English-speaking  world  —  not  even  in  the  United 
States  —  have  advanced  conceptions  of  democracy  been  put 
so  fully  into  practice  amidst  a  vast  population  and  over  a  broad 
expanse  of  territory.  The  first  civil  government  was  set  up  in 
the  country,  in  New  South  Wales,  in  1823  ;  and  thereafter  written 
constitutions,  representative  legislatures,  and  responsible  exec- 
utives were  given  the  various  colonies  as  rapidly  as  growth  of 
population  permitted.  By  i860  there  were  five  self-governing 
colonies  (including  the  island  of  Tasmania) ;  and  a  sixth  was  or- 
ganized in  1890.  Union  under  a  federal  government  was  sug- 
gested as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  but  fifty 
years  of  discussion  and  experiment  proved  necessary  before  the 
colonies  could  come  into  agreement  upon  a  plan.  A  scheme  was 
at  length  made  ready,  in  1899,  for  the  home  government's  con- 
sideration, and  in  the  great  Australia  Commonwealth  Act  of  the 
following  year  Parliament  gave  the  project  its  assent.  The  new 
arrangement  took  effect  on  the  opening  day  of  the  present  cen- 
tury. 

The  Commonwealth  consists  of  six  states,  and  it  also  exercises 
jurisdiction  over  the  Northern  Territory  (on  the  mainland) 
and  over  British  New  Guinea.  New  states  may  be  admitted 
by  the  Dominion  Parliament  on  such  terms  as  it  desires  to  impose. 
New  Zealand  has  had  the  opportunity  to  come  in  ;  but,  being 
twelve  hundred  miles  distant,  and  having  very  satisfactory  gov- 
ernmental arrangements,  that  country  has  preferred  to  remain  a 
separate  self-governing  dominion.  Unlike  the  Canadian  con- 
stitution (the  North  America  Act) ,  which  was  put  in  operation 
without  popular  action,  the  Australian  fundamental  law  (the 
Commonwealth  Act)  came  direct  from  the  hands  of  the  people ; 
and  in  contents  and  arrangement  it  strongly  resembles  the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  The  Canadian  instrument  can 
be  amended  only  by  act  of  the  Imperial  Parliament,  but  the  Aus- 
tralian can  be  changed  whenever  a  majority  of  the  people  in  a 

Government,"  in  Amcr.  Polit.  Set.  Rev.,  May,  1913.  Current  political  events  are 
adequately  chronicled  in  J.  C.  Hopkins  [ed.],  The  Canadian  Annual  Review  of  Public 
Affairs  (Toronto,  iooi-     ). 


..44 


G0\  ERNMEN  IS   OF    EUROPE 


majority  of  the  states  so  vote,  providing  the  desired  amendment 
has  been  passed  by  both  houses  of  the<  lommonwealth  Parliament, 
or  passed  twice, at  an  interval  of  not  less  than  three  months,  by 
one  house.  The  final  enactmenl  by  the  [mperial  Parliament 
is  purely  formal.  Amendment  is  decidedly  easier  to  bring  about 
than  in  the  United  States. 

The  structure  of  government  is  so  similar  to  that  in  Canada 
that  it  need  not  be  dealt  with  at  length.  The  governor-general, 
representing  the  British  crown,  is  the  nominal  chief  executive. 
The  ministers,  selected  as  in  Canada,  form  the  actual,  working 
executive.  There  is  no  written  provision  for  a  cabinet  system 
-  no  mention,  even,  of  the  prime  minister.  But  the  system  is 
nowhere  more  fully  operative.  Parliament  consists  of  a  Senate 
and  a  House  of  Representatives,  following  the  nomenclature  of 
our  own  Congress.  The  Senate  contains  six  members  from  each 
state,  elected  directly  by  the  people  on  a  general  ticket,  and  for 
six  years.  Representatives  are  chosen  by  the  people  in  single- 
member  districts  for  three  years.  As  in  Canada  and  the  United 
States,  a  reapportionment  follows  every  decennial  census ;  and 
undue  increase  in  the  size  of  the  house  is  prevented  by  the  re- 
quirement that  the  lower  chamber  shall  be  maintained  at  prac- 
tically double  the  membership  of  the  upper  one.  As  in  Canada, 
the  >uffrage  is  controlled  by  the  individual  states  in  so  far  as  the 
federal  government  does  not  impose  regulations.  Under  state 
law.  manhood  suffrage  prevails  everywhere,  and  most  of  the  states 
have  also  bestowed  the  franchise  on  women.  Following  the 
American  plan,  and  in  contrast  with  the  Canadian,  the  federal 
government  is  given  only  limited  powers ;  residual  powers  are 
assigned  to  the  states.  The  powers  definitely  conferred  upon  the 
federal  government  are  more  extensive  than  in  the  United  States, 
for  the  Australians  were  able  to  learn  from  the  experience  of  this 
country  what  powers  are  needed  by  such  a  government.  But 
there  is  far  less  centralization  than  in  Canada.  The  history  of 
the  Commonwealth  in  the  past  fifteen  years  has  been  notable 
for  a  great  succession  of  measures  designed  to  establish  complete 
political  and  social  democracy.  So  powerful,  indeed,  has  the 
working  class  become  that  in  i <; i o  the  country  found  itself  with 
a  Labor  ministry,  supported  by  a  Labor  majority  in  the  House 
of  Commons,  and  with  a  former  Scottish  coal  miner  as  premier.1 

'The  political  history  "f  Australia  to  1911  is  accurately  sketched  in  E.  Jenks, 

History  of  the  Australasian  Colon:  ed.,  Cambridge,  1912).     The  -object  is 

dealt  with  at  greater  length  in  ().  W.  Rusden,  History  of  Australia,  3  vols.  (Mel 

bourne,  1897),  and  in  II.  Parkes,  Fifty  Years  in  tht  Making  of  Australian  History 

Ion,  1892).     The  best  account  of  the  system  of  government  is  Keith,  Respon- 


GREATER  BRITAIN  345 

The  Union  of  South  Africa.  —  The  latest,  and  in  many  respects 
the  most  remarkable,  triumph  of  the  British  policy  of  colonial 
unification  is  the  Union  of  South  Africa.  At  the  close  of  the  Boer 
war,  in  1902,  Great  Britain  had,  in  the  late  theater  of  conflict, 
two  self-governing  colonies,  Cape  Colony  and  Natal,  and  two 
conquered  territories,  the  former  Boer  republics,  Orange  Free 
State  and  the  Transvaal,  upon  which  she  had  promised  to 
confer  responsible  government  of  the  familiar  English  type. 
The  pledge  to  the  Transvaal  was  redeemed  in  1906,  and  that  to 
the  Orange  Free  State  (the  present  Orange  River  Colony)  in 
the  following  year.  Problems  now  arose  relating  to  finance, 
tariff  policy,  railroad  control,  and  dealings  with  the  natives, 
which  made  close  cooperation  of  the  colonies  imperative.  A 
movement  for  union  under  a  common  government  was  accord- 
ingly set  on  foot.  Boer  and  English  elements  alike  supported  it, 
and  in  1908  a  federal  constitution  was  drawn  up  by  a  conven- 
tion of  representatives  appointed  by  the  several  colonial  legis- 
latures. Only  one  colony  (Natal)  cared  to  take  advantage  of  the 
opportunity  given  for  submitting  the  instrument  to  a  popular 
vote.  Ratified  there,  the  constitution  was  sent  to  the  home 
country,  where,  in  the  autumn  of  1909,  Parliament  gave  it 
final  approval.     The  new  system  took  effect  May  31,  1910. 

The  main  question  before  the  constitution's  framers  was 
whether  to  create  a  comparatively  decentralized  union  like 
Australia  or  a  highly  centralized  one  on  the  plan  of  Canada. 
The  considerations  that  made  a  union  necessary  at  all  seemed 
to  require  a  union  of  very  substantial  strength.  Hence  the 
decision  was  for  a  unitary,  rather  than  a  federal,  system.  The 
four  component  provinces  became  mere  local  government  areas, 
with  separate  legislative  and  administrative  machinery,  but 
with  powers  reduced  far  below  the  level  of  those  of  even  the  Cana- 
dian provinces.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Union  government  was 
endowed  with  comprehensive  powers,  both  enumerated  and  resid- 
ual. This  decision  did  not  in  any  way  interfere  with  the  complete 
installation  of  the  parliamentary  system ;  indeed,  as  the  experi- 
ence of  Australia  shows,  pure  federalism,  at  all  events  if  it  in- 
volves two  popularly  elected  houses  of  parliament,  is  likely  to 
raise  the  troublesome  question  of  cabinet  responsibility  divided 

sible  Government  in  the  Dominions,  passim.     Poley,  Federal  Systems  of  the  United 

Slate:,  and  Hie  British  Empire,  Chaps,  xxiv-xxxii,  is  moderately  satisfactory.  Three 
important  works  are:  B.  R.  Wise,  The  Making  of  the  Australian  Commonwealth, 
1889-1900  (London,  1913) ;  W.  H.  Moore,  The  Constitution  of  the.  Commonwealth 
of  Australia  (London,  1902) ;  and  H.  G.  Turner,  The  First  Decade  of  the  Australian 
Commonwealth  (London,  191 1). 


346  GOVERNMEN  I  S  01     EUROPE 

between  two  legislative  bodies.  The  governor-general  represents 
the  crown,  the  ministers  (limited  to  ten)  bear  responsibility  tor 
all  executive  acts,  and  every  other  essential  of  parliamentary 
government  appears  in  its  due  form.    The  Senate,  preserving 

a  touch  of  federalism,  consist-  of  eight  members  elected  by  each 
provincial  council,  together  with  eight  appointed  by  the  governor- 
•ral.  for  terms  of  ten  years.     The  House  of  Assembly  consi 

of  121  members  chosen  for  five  years  under  suffrage  laws  that 
admit  practically  all  male  Boer  and  English  residents  hut  exclude 
native  Africans!  On  account  of  its  numerical  preponderance, 
the  "  South  African,"  or  Boer,  party  has  steadily  controlled  the 
government,  the  first  prime  minister  being  General  Botha,  who 
less  than  a  decade  earlier  had  ably  led  the  Boer  army  against 
the  forces  of  Lord  Roberts  and  Lord  Kitchener.  However,  the 
larger  interests  of  the  Empire  suffered  nothing  thereby.  An 
uprising  of  discontented  Dutch  elements  in  the  early  months  of 
the  Great  War  caused  much  apprehension  ;  but  it  was  suppressed 
by  a  Union  government  that  was  itself  Boer,  and  thereafter  South 
Africa  bore  a  full  share  in  the  conflict  with  the  Teutonic  powers.1 
Crown  Colonies  and  Protectorates  :  Egypt.  —  The  self-govern- 
ing dominions  are  inhabited  chiefly  by  people  who  have  the  deeply 
implanted  instinct  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  for  self-government,  and 
who  are  endowed  with  his  rich  traditions  of  political  organiza- 
tion, method,  and  purpose.  In  many  of  the  oversea  possessions, 
however,  men  of  European  stocks  are  heavily  outnumbered  by 
more  or  less  backward  natives;  and  here  it  is  inevitable  that  a 
different  plan  of  government  should  be  employed.  The  majority 
of  these  possessions  come  under  the  general  designation  of 
"  crown  colonies,"  i.e.,  colonies  which  are  kept  under  substantial 
control  of  the  British  government  at  London.  Like  Bermuda 
and  the  Bahamas,  they  may  have  an  elected  lower  house  and  an 
appointed  upper  house,  or  council;  like  Jamaica  and  Malta, 
they  may  have  a  partially  elected  and  partially  appointed  legis- 
lative council ;  like  Ceylon  and  the  Straits  Settlements,  they  may 

*The  growth  of  British  power  in  South  Africa  is  well  outlined  in  N.  D.  Harris, 
Intervention  and  Colonization  in  Africa  ( F.oston,  1914),  ('hap.  viii,  and  in  E.  Sander- 
Greai  Britain  in  Modem  Africa  (London,  [907),  Chaps.  1,  in.     'the  political 
history  of  the  period  (,f  \]  ir  and  of  n  set  forth  in  detail  w 

a  scries  of  works  1a-  \Y.  B.  Worsfold,  i.e.,  South  Africa;  a  Study  in  Colonial  Ad- 
ministration and  Development  (2d  ed.,  London,  1897),  Lord  Milner's  Work  in  South 
Africa,  1897-1902  (London,   1  instruction  of  the  New  Colonics  under  Lord 

MUner,  2  vols.  (London,  [913),  and  The  Union  of  South  Africa  (London.  1913). 
The  Rovernm.  to  is  best  described  in  Keith,  Responsible  Govern- 

ment in  the  Dominions.  passim.  A  briefer  account  is  Foley,  Federal  Systems  of  the 
United  States  and  the  British  Empire,  Chaps,  xxxiii-xli. 


GREATER  BRITAIN  347 

have  a  legislative  council  that  is  wholly  appointive ;  like  Basuto- 
land  and  Gibraltar,  they  may  have  no  legislative  council  at  all. 
But  all  of  them  have  a  resident  governor  or  other  administrator 
appointed  by  the  British  government,  who  is  a  real  ruler,  charged 
with  carrying  out  the  orders  of  the  Colonial  Office  at  London, 
and  not  subject  to  control  from  within  the  colony.  In  other 
words,  while  some  have  partially  developed  representative  insti- 
tutions, none  have  responsible  government,  in  the  sense  in  which 
we  have  grown  accustomed  to  use  that  phrase ;  the  executives 
cannot  be  forced  out  of  office  by  the  votes  of  hostile  legislatures. 
It  is  always  possible  for  a  colony  to  be  raised  to-  a  higher  grade 
in  the  political  scale ;  and  there  has  never  been  an  attempt  to 
make  these  minor  possessions  a  source  of  tribute  to  the  governing 
nation.  The  British  method  of  administering  backward  regions 
is  based  on  two  main  principles  —  first,  the  protection  of  native 
rights,  and  second,  equality  of  opportunity  (the  "  open  door  ") 
for  all  trading  peoples.  British  rule  in  the  vast  undeveloped  parts 
of  Africa,  Asia,  and  Oceanica  has  not  always  been  free  from  abuses 
of  power.  But  there  have  been  no  notorious  atrocities,  and  it 
may  be  said  without  exaggeration  that  to  the  backward  races 
English  authority  has  meant  the  cessation  of  unending  slaughter, 
the  disappearance  of  slavery,  the  protection  of  the  rights  and 
usages  of  primitive  and  simple  folk  against  reckless  exploitation , 
and  the  chance  of  gradual  improvement  and  emancipation-  from 
barbarism.  Everywhere  it  has  meant  the  reign  of  law,  without 
which  civilization  is  impossible.1 

Somewhat  different  from  the  crown  colonies  are  the  protec- 
torates. In  the  one,  government  is  largely  or  wholly  in  the  hands 
of  officials  appointed  from  London,  and  chiefly  Englishmen ; 
in  the  other,  native  governments  and  institutions  are  kept  in 
operation,  but  under  English  supervision.  The  largest  and  most 
important  of  the  protectorates  to-day  is  the  ancient  land  of 
Egypt,  with  its  dependency,  the  Anglo-Egyptian  Sudan.  Tech- 
nically, Egypt  has  been  a  British  protectorate  only  since  1914. 
Prior  to  that  date,  the  country  indeed  occupied  a  peculiar 
position.  It  acknowledged  Turkish  suzerainty ;  yet  its  heredi- 
tary prince,  the  Khedive,  was  practically  immune  from  Turkish 
rule ;  and  after  1879  the  land  was  under  substantial  control,  first 
of  Great  Britain  and  France  jointly,  and  later  (from  1882)  of 

1  On  crown  colony  administration  see  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II,  Chap, 
lvi,  and  A.  Ireland,  Tropical  Colonization  (New  York,  1899),  Chap.  ii.  An  im- 
portant book  is  C.  Bruce,  The  Broad  Stone  of  Empire;  Problems  of  Crown  Colony 
Administration,  2  vols.  (London,  1910). 


GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

Great  Britain  alone,  whose  Vgents  and  Consul  General,  while 
nominall)  acting  only  as  advisers  of  the  Khedive,  in  poinl  ol 
fact  guid<  i  inisters  and  lawmaki  i     in  all  that    they  did. 

From  the  lasl  mentioned  dale  the  country  was,  therefore,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes,  a  British  prote<  torate;  and  the  change  was 
one  of  form  rather  than  of  fact  when,  in  I  December,  1914,  the  Khe- 
dive (who  had  openly  espoused  the  cause  of  Turkey  in  the  wan 
was  deposed,  Turkish  suzerainty  was  declared  at  an  end,  the 
khedival  crown  was  bestowed  on  a  new  native  dignitary  bearing 
the  title  of  Sultan,  the  British  Consul-General  became  a  High 
Commissioner,  and  the  term  protectorate  was  for  the  first  time 
officially  applied  to  the  country. 

The  preexisting  system,  which  has  been  well  described  as  one 
of  government  "  by  inspection  and  advice,"  was  continued  in 
most  of  its  essentials.  The  Sultan  is  continually  counseled  by 
the  High  Commissioner;  the  ministers  are  selected  as  London 
dictates  ;  they  are  directed  by  British  financial,  judicial,  and  other 
special  advisers,  and  the  actual  work  of  administration  in  the 
departments  is  carried  on  by  under-secretaries  who  are  English- 
men; the  local  authorities,  from  provincial  governor  to  omdeh, 
or  village  chief,  are  instructed  at  every  turn  by  British  experts; 
the  native  army  is  drilled  and  partly  officered  by  British  red- 
coats. Forty  years  of  this  sort  of  control  have  lifted  the  country 
out  of  a  quagmire  of  political  corruption,  bankruptcy,  ignorance, 
and  misery.  The  English  have  been  criticized  for  not  advancing 
the  Egyptians  more  rapidly  toward  self-government;  and  a 
small  but  noisy  "  nationalist  "  party  demands  the  complete  and 
immediate  restoration  of  the  country  to  native  control.  Much 
time,  however,  is  required  to  develop  political  capacity  in  a 
wholly  inexperienced  and  undisciplined  people,  and  the  progress 
that  has  been  made  in  Egypt  is  perhaps  all  that  could  properly 
have  been  expected.  The  inestimable  benefits  of  law,  order, 
and  justice  have  been  secured  ;  a  continuous  and  forceful  object- 
lesson  in  good  administration  has  been  afforded;  certain  self- 
governing  institutions  chiefly  a  national  assembly,  created  in 
1883  and  strengthened  in  [913  have  been  established  ;  finally, 
the  High  Commissioner,  Field  Marshal  Allenby,  was  able  to 
announce  late  in  1910  that  the  British  government  would  soon 
send  to  Egypt  a  deputation  which,  in  consultation  with  the 
Sultan  and  his  ministers,  would  prepare  a  new  and  written  con- 
stitution for  the  country.1 

1  The  monumental  accounl  of  British  activities  in  Egypt  is  Earl  of  Cromer, 
Modern  Egypt,  •  vols.  (New  Jfork,  [908).     An  admirable  briefer  treatment  of  the 


GREATER   BRITAIN  349 

The  Empire  of  India.1  —  Another  ancient  land  over  which 
British  authority  has  been  extended  is  India  —  a  country  which 
alone  contains  four  fifths  of  the  population  of  the  entire  British 
colonial  empire.  This  remarkably  vast  and  rich  dependency 
was  brought  gradually  under  control  by  a  great  commercial 
corporation,  the  East  India  Company,  chartered  by  Queen 
Elizabeth  in  1600.  Toward  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century 
the  English  government  began  to  assert  increasing  authority 
over  the  company's  affairs,  and  in  1858,  following  the  Sepoy 
mutiny,  all  of  the  corporation's  rights  and  powers  were  transferred 
to  the  crown.  The  same  measure  that  brought  the  company's 
political  functions  to  an  end  —  the  Better  Government  of  India 
Act  —  vested  the  management  of  Indian  affairs,  subject  to  the 
ultimate  authority  of  Parliament,  in  a  new  minister,  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  for  India,  assisted  by  a  Council  of  India,  consisting 
of  from  ten  to  fourteen  salaried  members  chosen  for  seven  years  by 
the  Secretary,  and  largely  from  persons  of  experience  in  Indian 
administration.  The  Secretary  and  his  Council  decide  important 
questions  of  policy ;  but  the  actual  work  of  administration  must, 
of  course,  be  left  to  authorities  resident  in  the  dependency. 

The  chief  of  these  authorities  is  the  viceroy,  or  governor- 
general,  a  dignitary  appointed  by  the  crown  for  five  years,  and 
ruling  from  Delhi,  the  capital  of  the  ancient  empire  of  the  Moguls. 
His  court  is  the  center  of  British  power  in  the  country,  civil  and 
military,  and  is  maintained  in  such  splendor  as  to  be  in  keeping 
with  the  traditions  to  which  the  natives  are  attached.  Under 
arrangements  existing  until  19 19,  the  viceroy  was  assisted  in  his 
numerous  duties  by  two  councils:  (1)  an  Executive  Council, 
consisting  of  five  or  six  high  officials  appointed  by  the  crown  for 
five  years,  and  serving  both  individually  as  heads  of  departments 
and  collectively  as  an  advisory  cabinet,  and  (2)  a  Legislative 
'  Council,  consisting  partly  of  the  members  of  the  Executive 
Council  and  partly  of  members  named  for  the  purpose  by  the 
viceroy.  The  India  Councils  Act  of  1909  enlarged  the  Legisla- 
tive Council,  however,  to  sixty  (exclusive  of  the  viceroy  and 
executive  councilors),  of  whom  thirty-three  were  appointed  and 
twenty-seven  were  elected  directly  or  indirectly  by  the  people ; 

subject  is  S.  Low,  Egypt  in  Transition  (London,  1914).  Other  important  works 
are  :  Lord  Milner,  England  in  Egypt  (London,  1899) ;  W.  B.  Worsfold,  The  Redemp- 
tion ofEgvpt  (London,  1809) ;  A.  Colvin,  Making  of  Modern  Egypt  (London,  1906) ; 
and  A.  S.White,  Expansion  of  Egypt  under  Anglo-Egyptian  Condominium  (London, 

1899). 

1  This  has  been  the  official  designation  of  the  country  since,  in  1877,  Queen 
Victoria  was  proclaimed  "  Empress  of  India." 


350  G0\  ERNMEN  I  S  01     El  ROPE 

and  the  body  thus  became  considerably  more  representative, 
although  its  powers  were  as  yet  limited  to  proposing  measures 
and  discussing  them  in  a  preliminary  way.  Subordinate  to  the 
central  government  were  fifteen  provincial  governments.  At  the 
head  of  each  was  a  governor,  or  a  lieutenant-governor,  or  a  chief 
commissioner,  appointed  by  the  crown;  and  each  included  a 
council  with  advisory  powers.  From  [86]  provision  was  made 
for  representation  of  the  natives  in  these  provincial  councils, 
and  changes  in  1892  and  1909  gave  the  non-official  elements  a 
majority  in  them,  although,  like  the  all-Indian  Legislative 
Council,  they  had  only  very  limited  powers.  Within  the  prov- 
inces the  main  burden  of  administration  fell  —and  still  falls  — 
upon  the  permanent  civil  service,  a  body  of  officers  recruited  by 
severe  competitive  examination  from  the  most  highly  educated 
young  men  of  the  United  Kingdom  and  of  India  itself.  These 
men  commonly  devote  their  lives  to  the  service,  and  they  may 
rise  to  the  responsible  positions  of  provincial  governors,  or  even 
heads  of  departments  at  Delhi.  Finally,  there  were  upwards  of 
seven  hundred  "  feudatory  "  states,  containing  two  fifths  of  the 
area  and  two  ninths  of  the  population  of  the  country.  Under 
treaties  individually  entered  into  with  the  British  government, 
these  states  are  still  ruled  by  their  native  Hindu  or  Moslem 
princes,  subject  only  to  British  supervision  and  protection.  At 
important  native  courts  British  interests  are  looked  after  by  a 
crown  official  known  as  a  "  resident."' 

During  the  past  quarter  century  there  has  been  much  fault- 
finding by  both  Hindu  and  Moslem  elements  of  the  population, 
and  the  Councils  Act  of  1909  was  passed  mainly  with  a  view  to 
allaying  discontent  by  giving  the  government  a  more  popular 
character.  Even  the  most  ardent  "  nationalist."  however,  is 
obliged  to  admit  that  all  classes  of  the  people  have  profited  by 
British  rule.  Until  British  power  was  established  the  country 
suffered  continually  from  disunion,  war,  and  absolutism.  The 
British  have  brought  the  vast  benefits  of  substantial  political 
unity,  impartial  administration  of  a  just  and  equal  system  of 
law.  and  practically  unbroken  domestic  peace,  not  to  speak 
of  such  specific  reforms  as  the  construction  of  railroads  and  high- 
ways, the  improvement  of  sanitation,  the  irrigation  of  desert 
lands,  the  relief  oi  olition  of  widow-suicide  and  of 

infanticide,  and  the  introduction  of  western  learning.  The 
Indian  peoples  pay  not  a  penny  of  tribute.  They  contribute 
nothing  to  the  upkeep  of  the  British  navy.  They  bear  the  ex- 
pense of  their  own  army,  but  not  when  the  troops  are  borrowed 


GREATER  BRITAIN  351 

for  service  in  other  parts  of  the  world.  British  traders  enjoy 
no  special  privileges  in  their  ports.  Protective  tariffs  may  be, 
and  have  been,  laid  with  the  purpose  of  restricting  imports  from 
the  United  Kingdom.  The  whole  body  of  British  civil  officials 
in  the  country  does  not  exceed  three  thousand,  and  trained  na- 
tives are  rapidly  working  their  way  upwards  in  the  service.  In 
a  land  where  political  unity  has  never  existed,  where  racial  and 
religious  cleavages  cut  to  the  very  bottom  of  society,  where 
thirty-eight  distinct  languages  are  spoken,  and  where  there  are 
no  traditions  of  government  save  those  of  absolutism,  the  estab- 
lishment of  real  self-government  is  a  task  not  of  years  but  of 
generations,  perhaps  of  centuries.  It  is  not  clear  that  England 
could  thus  far  have  moved  more  rapidly  in  India  with  safety  to 
the  fundamental  interests  involved. 

None  the  less,  it  is  generally  conceded  that  the  time  has  come  for 
important  readjustments.  India  loyally  supported  the  Allied  cause 
during  the  Great  War,  but  her  people  were  not  averse  to  taking 
advantage  of  the  new  situation  created  by  the  conflict  to  demand 
larger  political  rights.  The  Hindu  National  Congress  appointed 
a  committee  in  191 5  to  draw  up  a  plan  for  Indian  self-government 
within  the  Empire;  and  at  simultaneous  conventions  held  at 
Lucknow  in  the  following  year  the  Congress  and  the  Moslem 
League,  hitherto  bitter  enemies,  came  into  full  agreement  upon 
a  demand  for  their  country's  admission  to  the  inner  councils  of 
the  Empire  on  a  footing  with  the  autonomous  dominions.  In 
August,  191 7,  the  British  government  announced,  through  the 
new  Secretary  of  State  for  India,  Mr.  Montagu,  that  henceforth 
Britain's  policy  would  be  "  the  increasing  association  of  Indians 
in  every  branch  of  the  administration,  and  the  gradual  develop- 
ment of  self-governing  institutions,  with  a  view  to  the  progressive 
realization  of  responsible  government  in  India  as  an  integral 
part  of  the  British  Empire." 

This  announcement  was  significant  as  being  the  first  official 
avowal  of  purpose  on  the  part  of  the  British  government  to  make 
the  political  education  of  the  Indian  peoples  a  fixed  feature 
of  its  policy,  and  their  political  autonomy  a  conscious  goal. 
In  pursuance  of  it,  an  exhaustive  study  of  the  problem  was  made 
in  India  in  the  winter  of  191 7-18  by  the  Secretary  for  India,  in 
collaboration  with  the  viceroy,  Lord  Chelmsford.  The  masterly 
report  submitted  to  the  cabinet  by  these  officials  early  in  19 18 
rejected  the  ultimate  demands  of  the  "  home  rule  "  parties,  but 
recommended  very  large  concessions ; l  and  after  two   expert 

1  Report  on  Indian  Constitutional  Reforms.     Cd.  9109.     1918. 


3S2  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

committees,  composed  almost  equally  of  Englishmen  and  natives, 
had  made  special  studies  of  the  suffrage  and  of  other  practical 
questions,  a  Governmenl  of  India  Bill  was  introduced  in  the 
House  of  Commons  embodying  the  essentials  of  the  several 
report-.  Debate  was  prolonged  and  difference  of  opinion  sharp. 
But  the  measure  became  law  in  December,  i  <; rQ. 

Under  the  terms  of  this  act  India  now  has  a  bicameral  repre- 
sentative body  which  is  worthy  of  being  called  a  parliament. 
The  upper  chamber  represents  an  expansion  of  the  Executive 
Council,  renamed  the  Council  of  State,  into  a  body  of  not  more 
than  sixty  members,  of  whom  not  more  than  twenty  may  be 
heads  of  departments  or  other.-,  serving  ex-officio.  The  lower 
chamber,  known  as  the  Assembly,  is  the  former  Legislative 
Council,  increased  to  one  hundred  and  twenty  members.  Mem- 
bers of  the  Council  of  State  are  named  for  rive  years,  and  mem- 
bers of  the  Assembly  are  elected  for  three  years;  but  either 
house  may  be  dissolved  at  any  time  by  the  viceroy.  Substan- 
tial legislative  and  fiscal  powers  are  conferred,  although  the  As- 
sembly is  not  allowed  to  vote  on,  or  even  to  discuss,  certain 
specified  topics  of  a  financial  character.  Differences  between 
the  two  houses  are  resolved  at  joint  sittings.  Provincial  govern- 
ment, as  reorganized,  consists  of  (i)  the  governor  and  an  execu- 
tive council  of  four  members  (of  whom  one  must  be  an  Indian). 
with  charge  of  "reserved"  subjects;  (2)  the  governor  and  a 
group  of  ministers  appointed  by  him  from  the  legislature,  with 
control  of  "  transferred "  sub jects ;  and  (3)  a  legislature  composed 
of  the  members  of  the  executive  council  and  members  elected, 
under  provisions  of  the  act,  by  an  electorate  numbering  some- 
what under  two  and  one  half  per  cent  of  the  population.  The 
popular  element  in  the  governmental  system  has  thus  been 
again  increased.  It  is  still  decidedly  smaller  than  the  nationalists 
demand,  and  there  have  been  strong  expressions  of  dissatisfac- 
tion. But  an  important  step  has  been  taken;  and  the  British 
government  is  committed,  not  only  to  continued  consideration  of 
the  subject,  but  to  "the  gradual  development  of  self-governing 
institutions  "  in  the  dependency.  The  act  of  1019,  indeed, 
provides  for  a  commission  to  report,  after  ten  years, il  as  to  whether, 
and  to  what  extent,  it  is  desirable  to  establish  the  principle 
of  responsible  government,  or  to  extend,  modify,  or  restrict  the 
degree  of  responsible  government  then  existing."  ' 

1  An  excellent  introduction  to  Indian  affairs  is  T.  W.  Holderness,  Peoples  and 
Problems  of  India  (New  York,  1913),  and  the  history  of  English  control  is  satis- 
factorily presented   in  A.  1  \  all.  Rise  and  Expansion  of  British  Dominion  in  India 


GREATER   BRITAIN  353 

The  Problem  of  Imperial  Reorganization.  —  Sixty  years  ago 
it  was  widely  felt  in  England  that  colonies  were  of  doubtful 
value,  and  that  the  English-speaking,  self-governing  dependencies 
would  eventually  claim  and  obtain  full  independence.  Later 
came  a  shift  of  opinion.  Sir  John  Seeley  and  other  writers 
roused  the  nation  to  a  new  perception  of  the  glory,  power,  and 
importance  of  the  Empire.  The  unification  of  Germany  and 
Italy,  the  rise  of  Japan,  and  the  growth  of  the  United  States 
brought  England,  standing  alone,  into  a  relatively  weaker 
position  than  she  had  been  accustomed  to  occupy.  The  increase 
of  armaments  imposed  a  burden  such  as  to  lead  to  the  suggestion 
that  the  colonies,  for  whose  protection  in  part  the  new  navy  was 
maintained,  should  bear  some  share  of  the  cost.  The  large  pos- 
sibilities of  a  federal  organization  of  partly  autonomous  states 
were  revealed  by  the  experience  of  not  only  the  United  States 
and  Germany  but,  within  the  Empire,  of  Canada,  and  later 
Australia.  The  result  was  that  an  attitude  of  indifference  gave 
way  to  a  strong  desire  to  bind  the  colonies  more  closely  to  the 
mother  country,  as  a  means  of  insuring  the  Empire's  perpetuity, 
unity,  and  strength.  Ties  of  sentiment,  of  common  citizenship, 
and  of  commercial  interest  already  existed.  But  no  one  knew 
how  strong  these  really  were;  no  one  could  say  what  would 
happen  in  the  event  of  a  serious  war  in  which  the  mother  country 
should  be  engaged,  but  which  did  not  directly  touch  the  colonies' 
welfare. 

The  solution  seemed  to  lie  in  some  scheme  by  which  the  great 

(New  York,  1893).  The  system  of  government  is  briefly  described  in  Lowell, 
Government  of  England,  II,  420-429,  and  Jenks,  Government  of  the  British  Empire, 
75-88.  The  most  important  documents  are  brought  together  in  Mukherji,  Indian 
Constitutional  Documents,  1773-1915  (London,  1915),  and  R.  Muir,  Making  of 
British  India  (London,  1915).  A  suggestive  study  is  Bryce,  "The  Roman 
Empire  and  the  British  Empire  in  India,"  in  Studies  in  History  and  Juris- 
prudence, 1-7 1.  The  principal  book  on  the  governmental  system  is  C.  Ilbert, 
Government  of  India  (3d  ed.,  London,  1915).  The  development  of  the  civil 
service  is  described  in  A.  L.  Lowell  and  H.  M.  Stephens,  Colonial  Civil  Service 
(New  York,  1900).  Among  numerous  books  presenting  India's  case  for  larger 
rights  of  self-government,  or  otherwise  dealing  with  the  political  situation, 
are  Aga  Khan,  India  in  Transition,  a  Study  in  Political  Evolution  (London, 
1918) ;  Lajpat  Rai,  Young  India  (New  York,  191 7) ;  ibid.,  England's  Debt  to  India 
(New  York,  191 7) ;  ibid.,  The  Political  Future  of  India  (New  York,  1919) ;  Archer, 
India  and  the  Future  (London,  19 17) ;  L.  Curtis,  Letters  to  the  People  of  India  on 
Responsible  Government  (London,  1918) ;  K.  Rao,  The  Future  Government  of  India 
(London,  1918) ;  V.  A.  Smith,  Indian  Constitutional  Reform  Viewed  in  the  Light  of 
History  (Oxford,  1919) ;  F.  B.  Fisher  and  G.  Williams,  India's  Silent  Revolution 
(New  York,  1919) ;  and  E.  Barker,  The  Future  Government  of  India  (London,  1919). 
Numerous  articles  in  the  Round  Table,  especially  since  1915,  are  helpful.  The 
position  occupied  by  the  native  states  is  described  in  W.  Lee-Warner,  Native  States 
of  India  (London,  1910),  and  more  briefly  in  Round  Table,  Dec,  1916,  pp.  91-113. 

2  A 


354  GOVF.RNMFNTS   OF    FFROI'F 

self-governing  colonics  should,  without  sacrificing  their  auton- 
omy, and  on  equal  terms  one  with  another,  be  brought  into  full 
copartnership  with  the  mother  country;  in  other  words,  some 
plan  of  "  imperial  federation."    There  were  several  forms  which 

such  a  federation  could  take.  It  mighl  in  the  first  plate,  be 
essentially  commercial.  That  is,  the  United  Kingdom  and  the 
self-governing  dominions  might  reciprocally  give  trade  advan- 
tages which  were  denied  to  the  rest  of  the  world.  In  pursuance 
of  this  idea,  Canada  in  1897  allowed  imports  from  the  mother 
country  the  advantage  of  a  remission  of  one  eighth  of  her  normal 
duties,  and  in  three  years  raised  the  preference  to  one  third. 
South  Africa,  Australia,  and  New  Zealand  took  similar  action. 
To  the  present  time,  however,  the  arrangement  is  one-sided; 
for  the  Unionist  proposal  of  "  tariff  reform  "  in  the  mother  coun- 
try has  been  unavailing,  and,  having  no  protective  duties  to  lower 
or  remit,  the  English  government  cannot  meet  the  colonial 
governments  halfway. 

A  second  possible  basis  is  that  of  armed  defense.  It  has  been 
pointed  out  that  although  the  navy  is  the  bulwark  of  the  domin- 
ions no  less  than  of  the  United  Kingdom,  no  one  of  them,  nor 
yet  India,  is  required  to  make  any  contribution  to  its  main- 
tenance. For  a  decade  prior  to  the  outbreak  of  war  in  1914  the 
English  people  were  staggering  under  a  steadily  mounting  bur- 
den of  naval  expenditure.  The  dominions  were  not  unmindful 
of  the  situation,  and  most  of  them  began  making  small  volun- 
tary grants  of  aid.  New  Zealand  contributed  a  battle-cruiser; 
South  Africa  voted  a  small  annual  money  payment ;  Australia 
started  the  building  of  a  modest  separate  fleet  unit ;  Canada 
discussed  the  subject  but  could  not  settle  upon  a  plan.  By 
voluntary  action,  furthermore,  three  of  the  dominions  furnished 
land  forces  for  use  in  the  Boer  war;  and  all  put  forth  unstinted 
effort  in  aid  of  the  motherland  and  her  allies  in  the  Great  War  of 
1914-18.  But,  after  full  acknowledgement  of  this  voluntary 
assistance  has  been  made,  the  question  remains  whether  it  would 
not  be  possible,  and  desirable,  to  establish  a  general  Imperial 
scheme  of  armed  defense  based  on  systematic  rather  than  chance 
cooperation,  and  organized  under  unified  military  control. 

Any  substantial  sort  of  federation  must,  however,  involve 
more  than  trade  preference  and  cooperative  defense.  There 
must  be  a  certain  amount  of  common  political  action,  and,  for 
this,  some  political  machinery.  The  dominions  have  not  been 
slow  to  let  it  be  known  that  it  does  not  comport  with  their  power 
and  pride  to  deal  with  their  "copartner"  at  London  simply 


GREATER   BRITAIN  355 

through  the  Colonial  Office,  as  a  crown  colony  or  other  inferior 
dependency  is  expected  to  do ;  and  long  ago  they  asked  that 
affairs  of  a  general  imperial  interest  should  be  discussed,  not  in 
the  British  cabinet  alone,  but  also  in  a  body  in  which  all  the  great 
oversea  sections  of  the  Empire  were  represented.  Prior  to  1914 
no  positive  steps  were  taken  to  meet  this  demand  except  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Imperial  Conference.  The  first  Conference  was 
held  in  1887,  on  the  occasion  of  the  Queen's  jubilee.  Others 
were  convoked  in  1897,  1902,  and  1907  ;  and  on  the  last  occasion 
a  permanent  organization  was  adopted,  with  a  view  to  regular 
meetings  every  four  years.  It  was  noteworthy  that  the  mother 
country  was  represented  at  the  sessions,  not.  by  the  Colonial 
Secretary,  but  by  the  prime  minister,  an  arrangement  which 
tended  to  put  the  dominions  —  who  were  also  represented  by 
their  premiers  —  on  a  common  footing  with  her.  The  Con- 
ference had  no  legal  status,  but  as  a  deliberative  and  advisory 
body  it  rendered  valuable  service. 

It  was  inevitable  that  cooperation  in  the  Great  War  should 
bring  striking  changes  in  the  interrelations  of  the  various  parts 
of  the  Empire.  Chief  among  these  was  the  rise  of  an  Imperial 
Cabinet.  One  of  the  first  acts  of  the  War  Cabinet  organized 
late  in  19161  was  to  convoke  a  special  Imperial  Conference  in 
which  the  self-governing  dominions,  and  also  India,  were  repre- 
sented. During  intervals  between  the  Conference's  sessions, 
in  191 7,  there  were  several  meetings  of  a  body  whose  like  the 
nation  had  never  seen  before.  Into  the  new  and  small  War 
Cabinet  were  brought  the  premiers  and  other  representatives  of 
the  dominions,  and  also  two  native  spokesmen  of  India  —  and 
not  as  mere  witnesses  and  informal  advisers,  but  as  ministers 
without  portfolio,  deliberating  and  voting  under  the  privy  coun- 
cilor's Oath.  Furthermore,  before  the  delegates  sailed  for  their 
homes  the  British  premier,  Lloyd  George,  announced  that  it  was 
proposed  to  hold  such  meetings  annually,  to  be  attended  by  the 
British  premier  and  such  of  his  colleagues  as  deal  especially  with 
Imperial  affairs,  by  the  premiers  or  other  accredited  spokesmen 
of  the  self-governing  dominions,  and  by  a  representative  of  India 
to  be  appointed  by  the  Indian  government.  An  Imperial  Parlia- 
ment which  should  bring  together  legislative  delegates  from  the 
whole  Empire  has  frequently  been  proposed,  but  as  often  aban- 
doned as  impracticable.  Under  war-time  emergency,  however, 
an  Imperial  Cabinet  became,  at  least  for  the  time  being,  a  reality. 
A  resolution  passed  by  the  Conference  of  191 7  looked  toward  a 

1  See  p.  106. 


356  GOVERNMEN  l>   01     El  ROPI 

genera]  readjustment  of  the  constitutional  relations  of  the  British 
government  at  a  special  Conference  to  be  called  after  the  war; 
and  it  contained  the  interesting  declaration  that  "any  such 
readjustment,  while  thoroughly  preserving  all  existing  powers 
of  self-government  and  complete  control  of  dome-tit  affairs, 
should  be  based  upon  a  full  recognition  of  the  dominions  as  auton- 
omous nations  of  an  Imperial  Commonwealth,  and  of  India  as 
an  important  portion  of  the  same, should  recognize  their  right  to 
an  adequate  voice  in  foreign  policy  and  in  foreign  relations, 
and  should  provide  effective  arrangements  for  continuous  con- 
sultation in  all  important  matters  of  common  Imperial  concern, 
and  for  such  necessary  concerted  action  founded  on  consultation 
as  the  several  governments  determine."  The  experiment  of 
191 7  was  repeated  in  1918.1 

1  For  a  brief  discussion  of  imperial  federation  see  Lowell,  Government  of  England, 
II,  Chap.  Iviii.  One  of  the  earliest  extensive  discussion-  is  C.  Dilke,  Prob 
Greater  Britain  (London,  1890).  More  recenl  books  on  the  subjed  are  R.  Jebb, 
Studies  in  Colonial  Nationalism  (London,  1005);  ibid.,  The  Imperial  Conference, 
2  vols.  (London,  njn);  ibid.,  I  •  Britannic  Question;  a  Survey  of  Alternatives 
(London,  1913);  J.  G.  Findlay,  The  Imperial  Conference  of  tgn  from  Within 
(London,  1912);  J.  W.  Root,  Colonial  Tariffs  (London,  too6)  ;  C.  J.  Fuchs,  Trade 
Policy  of  Great  Britain  and  her  Colonics  since  i860,  trans,  by  ('.  Archibald  (London, 
iqot);  E.J.  Payne,  Colonies  and  Colonial  Federation  (London,  1905);  Lord  Milner, 
The  Nation  and  the  Empire  (Boston,  1913) ;  L.  Curtis,  The  Problem  of  the  Common- 
wealth (London,  1916);  A.  I'.  Newton,  The  Empire  and  the  Future  (London,  1916) ; 
and  W.  B.  Worsfold,  The  Empire  on  the  Anvil  (London.  1916).  An  interesting  ex- 
pression of  opinion  by  the  Earl  of  Cromer  is  presented  in  \Y.  II.  Dawson  |ed.|,  After- 
War  Problems  (New  York,  1917),  17-38.  On  the  Imperial  Cabinet  see  J.  A. 
Fairlie,  British  War  Administration  (New  York,  1919),  Chap,  iii,  and  (..  M.  Wrong, 
"The  Imperial  War  Cabinet,"  in  Canadian  Hist.  Rev.,  Mar.,  [920.  Interesting 
suggestions  are  made  in  A.  P.  Poley,  "The  Privy  Council  and  Problems  of  Closer 
Union  of  the  Empire,"  in.  Jour.  Soc.  Comp.  I-  .,  \-^.,  [917,  and  A.  B.  Keith, 
"The  Idea  of  an  Imperial  Constitution,"  in  Canad.  Law  rimes,  Nov.,  1916. 
Useful  surveys  of  the  subject  are  T.  II.  Boggs,  "The  British  Empire  and  Closer 
Union,"  in  Amer.  Polit.  Sci.  Rev.,  Nov.,  [916,  and  R.  L.  Schuyler,  "Reconstruction 
of  the  British  Empire,"  in  Polit.  Sci.  (Juar.,  Sept.,  1916. 


PART    II 

GOVERNMENTS   AND   POLITICS   OF   CONTINENTAL 

STATES 

i.   France 

CHAPTER   XX 

THE   RISE    OF   CONSTITUTIONAL    GOVERNMENT 

Government  under  the  Old  Regime.  —  Disraeli  once  whimsi- 
cally remarked  that  there  are  only  two  events  in  history  —  the 
siege  of  Troy  and  the  French  Revolution.  The  statement  is 
absurd  enough ;  and  yet  it  contains  this  undoubted  truth,  that 
the  political  and  social  transformation  of  France  at  the  close 
of  the  eighteenth  century  can  be  kept  off  no  list,  regardless  of 
how  brief  it  is,  of  great  historic  occurrences.  It  divided  the 
career  of  France  into  two  vast,  unequal  chapters ;  it  released 
impulses  which  turned  the  governments  and  peoples  of  all 
western  continental  Europe  into  new  paths ;  despite  the  appre- 
hensions and  admonitions  of  Burke,  it  perceptibly  affected  the 
political  development  of  England ;  the  waves  of  its  influence 
have  reached  the  most  distant  parts  of  the  earth  and  have  not 
yet  spent  their  strength.  Modern  government  in  continental 
Europe  is  largely  the  product,  not  of  the  Revolution  in  any  narrow 
or  immediate  sense,  it  is  true,  yet  of  the  complex  of  liberalizing 
forces  to  which  the  Revolution  first  gave  full  and  concrete  expres- 
sion. 

In  turning  to  a  study  of  the  political  systems  of  the  principal 
continental  states  it  is  therefore  logical  to  begin  with  France ; 
and  in  undertaking  an  analysis  of  the  governmental  institu- 
tions and  usages  of  the  France  that  we  know  to-day,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  take  a  backward  glance  at  the  nature  and  extent  of  the 
political  change  which  the  Revolution  wrought,  and  at  the  prin- 
cipal stages  through  which  the  political  experience  of  the  nation 
passed  before  the  stability  and  maturity  of  the  Third  Republic 
were  reached.     An  additional  reason  for  taking  up  France  next 

357 


358  GOVERNMENTS  OF   El  ROl  E 

in  order  alter  England  is  that  the  institution  or  form  that  domi- 
nates the  governmental  organization  of  both  states  is  the  same, 
namely,  the  cabinet  system.  The  two  governments  are  suffi- 
.  iently  alike  to  make  comparisons  and  contrasts  both  interesting 
and  instructive. 

The  political  system  which  the  Revolution  overturned  was  the 
product  of  eight  hundred  years  of  growth.  On  account  of  her 
less  isolated  position,  France  was  played  upon  by  more  unsettling 
forces  in  medieval  and  modern  times  than  was  England.  But 
it  would  be  easy  to  exaggerate  the  difference  between  the  two 
states  so  far  as  the  mere  matter  of  political  and  institutional 
continuity  is  concerned ;  the  changeableness of  governmental  forms 
which  seemed  a  main  French  characteristic  between  1789  and 
1875  found  no  counterpart  in  the  history  of  the  country  in  earlier 
centuries.  The  principal  features  of  this  historic  political  sys- 
tem can  be  stated  briefly.  First,  the  government  was  an  abso- 
lute monarchy.  It  is  true  that  certain  fundamental  laws  of  the 
realm,  established  for  the  most  part  by  custom,  had  become  real 
constitutional  principles,  and  as  such  were  considered  binding 
upon  the  king  himself.  One  of  these  regulated  the  succession 
to  the  throne ;  another  forbade  alienation  of  the  royal  domain. 
But  there  was  a  good  deal  of  doubt  as  to  what  rules  belonged 
in  this  category,  and  the  freedom  of  the  sovereign  suffered  no 
great  limitation.  Gathering  strength  in  the  hands  of  strong- 
willed  monarchs  such  as  Philip  Augustus,  Louis  IX,  and  Philip 
the  Fair,  the  royal  authority  readied  its  apogee  in  Ic  grand 
monarque,  Louis  XIV,  in  the  second  half  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury—  a  king  who  subordinated  everything  to  dynastic  interests, 
who  surpassed  all  contemporary  despots  in  his  sense  of  un- 
bounded and  irresponsible  dominion,  and  who  showered  every 
favor  upon  the  bishop-courtier  Bossuet  for  writing  a  book  which 
made  him  the  chief  exponent  of  the  theory  of  absolute  mon- 
archy by  divine  right.1  "  We  hold  our  crown  from  God  alone,'' 
reads  an  edict  of  Louis  XV  in  1770 ;  "  the  right  to  make  laws,  by 
which  our  subjects  must  be  conducted  and  governed,  belongs 
to  us  alone,  independently  and  unshared." 

Second,  the  country's  affairs  wire  administered  by  a  vast, 
centralized,  bureaucratic  body  of  officials  —  notably  the  inten- 
dants  of  the  generalites  and   their  agents,   the  sub-delegues  — 

1  La  politique  Urcr  des  pro 'tis  paroles  de  V&criUtre  sainte,  or  "Politics  as  derived 
from  the  very  Words  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  published  soon  after  the  author  was 
appointed  tutor  to  the  dauphin  in  1670.  See  Dunning,  Political  Theories  from 
Luther  to  Montesquieu,  325-330. 


THE  RISE  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  GOVERNMENT    359 

under  the  direction  of  the  chancellor,  the  controller-general  of 
finances,  and  the  secretaries  of  state  for  the  royal  household, 
foreign  affairs,  war,  and  marine  at  Paris.1  Together  with  a 
varying  number  of  influential  men  who  held  no  portfolio,  these 
six  ministers  composed  a  Royal  Council,  of  some  forty  members 
in  1789,  which  was  in  some  respects  more  truly  the  center  of 
power  than  the  king  himself.  The  members  of  the  administra- 
tive hierarchy  could  rarely  be  controlled  or  called  to  account  by 
the  people,  and  local  self-government  was  rather  a  tradition 
than  a  fact.2 

Third,  the  Estates  General,  which,  speaking  broadly,  grew  up 
in  France  contemporaneously  with  the  rise  of  the  English  Par- 
liament, had  failed  to  win  for  itself  any  such  position  as  had 
been  arrived  at  by  its  counterpart  beyond  the  Channel.  In 
the  first  place,  it  had  never  outgrown  the  medieval  type  of 
assembly  organized  on  the  basis  of  "  estates,"  or  orders,  with 
separate  interests  and  distinct  traditions.  It  sat  and  deliberated 
in  three  separate  bodies,  or  chambers,  one  representing  the 
nobility,  one  the  clergy,  and  a  third  the  tiers  etat,  "  third  estate," 
or  bourgeois,  middle  class.  The  first  two  estates  usually  agreed 
on  proposals  submitted  to  them,  and  could  always  outvote  the 
tiers  etat.  In  the  second  place,  whereas  the  English  Parliament 
met  as  a  rule  once  a  year  in  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  cen- 
turies, and  on  an  average  at  least  once  every  five  or  six  years 
under  the  Tudors  and  Stuarts,  the  Estates  General  in  France  was 
summoned  at  extremely  irregular  intervals,  which  grew  gradually 
longer,  until  after  161 4  it  was  summoned  no  more  at  all  until 
financial  necessity  forced  the  government's  hand  in  1789.  Fi- 
nally, the  assembly  never  became  anything  more  than  a  body  of 
men  who  were  agents  in  relation  to  their  constituents,  petitioners 
in  relation  to  the  king,  with  no  general,  independent  powers, 
either  fiscal  or  legislative.  Regional  "  estates "  survived  in 
Burgundy,  Brittany,  and  Languedoc,  and  a  few  other  provinces 
in  1789,  but  they  were  hardly  more  than  subsidiary  adminis- 
trative agencies. 

Fourth,  the  entire  political  system  was  based  on  inequality 
and  privilege.  The  government  was  notoriously  arbitrary  and 
capricious,  and  it  not  only  "  incessantly  changed  particular 
regulations  or  particular  laws,"  as  de  Tocqueville  tells  us,  but 
applied  a  given  law  in  no  general  or  uniform  manner  to  all  indi- 

1  Dupriez,  Les  ministres,  II,  249-253 ;  P.  Boiteau  d'Ambly,  Vital  de  la  France  en 
i?8g  (Paris,  1861),  111-143. 

2  See  p.  466. 


360  GOVERNMENT!     OF    EUROPE 

viduals.  There  were  no  certain  guarantees  of  personal  freedom  ; 
under  a  lettre  de  cachet,  or  "scaled  Idler,"  any  one  might  be 
arrested  summarily  and  held  in  prison  until  it  suited  the  con- 
venience of  tlif  authorities  to  inquire  into  the  merits  of  his  case. 
In  return  for  a  small  collective  don  gratuit  (which  sometimes 
was  not  actually  paid),  the  clergy  as  a  class  was  exempt  from 
taxation.  The  nobles  paid  only  such  nominal  taxes  as  they 
bargained  with  the  officials  to  pay ;  and  both  they  and  the  clergy 
enjoyed  many  other  privileges,  including  a  monopoly  of  high 
offices  and  honors  and  the  feudal,  customary  right  of  exploiting 
the  peasantry.1 

Growth  of  Political  Liberalism  in  the  Eighteenth  Century.  — 
The  government  of  the  Bourbon  kings  was  thus  autocratic, 
wasteful,  corrupt,  and  burdensome ;  and  in  1789  a  tide  of  protest 
which  had  long  been  rising  swept  over  the  head  of  the  luckless 
Louis  XVI  and  engulfed  the  whole  order  of  things  of  which  he 
was  a  part.  This  protest  came  fundamentally  from  the  great 
body  of  the  people,  and  especially  from  the  intelligent,  ambi- 
tious, and  well-to-do  bourgeoisie,  which  supplied  most  of  the 
constructive  statesmanship  of  the  Revolution.  It  found  most 
lucid  and  forceful  expression,  however,  in  the  writings  of  a 
remarkable  group  of  critics,  essayists,  dramatists,  and  novelists, 
known  collectively  as  the  pJiilosophes.  Beginning  with  the 
light  satire  of  Montesquieu's  Lctlres  Persanes  (1721),  this 
literary  and  philosophic  appraisal  of  the  existing  state  of  things, 
-  in  government,  law,  the  Church,  education,  economic  organi- 
zation, and  practically  everything  else  —  advanced  by  stages 
to  the  bitter  denunciations  of  Voltaire  in  the  "Philosophic 
Dictionary"  (1764)  and  the  "Essay  on  Republican  Ideas" 
(1765).  Criticism  was  not  merely  destructive;  the  underlying 
aim  was  the  reorganization  of  society,  including  government, 
on  the  rules  of  reason  and  natural  justice.  In  the  political  field 
the  new  thought  took,  indeed,  widely  different  forms.  Voltaire 
and  the  Physiocrats,  sprung  from  the  privileged  classes  and 
careless  of  political  rights,  would  perpetuate  the  absolute  power 
of  the  king,  insisting  only  that  the  prince  use  his  authority  to 

1  The  state  of  government  before  the  Revolution  is  more  fully  described  in 
Cambridge  Modern  History,  VIII,  Chap,  ii,  and  !•',.  J.  Lowell,  The  Eve  of  the  French 
Revolution  (Boston,  1892),  Chaps,  i,  ii,  viii.  Important  French  works  included. 
cqueville,  I.'Ancien  rigirm  (Paris,  t8s6),  trans,  by  II.  Reeve  under  the  title 
State  of  Society  in  France  before  the  Revolution  of  ijSij  and  the  Causes  which  led  to 
Unit  Event  (new  ed.,  Oxford,  1804),  and  H.  A.  Taine,  Les  origines  de  la  France  con- 
temporaine:  L'Ancien  regime  (Paris,  1876),  trans,  by  J.  Durand  as  The  Ancient 
Regime  (New  Yorl.,  1 


THE  RISE  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  GOVERNMENT    361 

accomplish  desirable  social  and  economic  reforms.  Montes- 
quieu, believing  that  the  merit  of  the  English  system  of  gov- 
ernment arose  from  a  division  of  powers  among  substantially 
independent  executive,  legislative,  and  judicial  authorities,  and 
failing  to  perceive  that  the  fast-developing  cabinet  system  was 
creating  exactly  the  opposite  situation,  denounced  despotism 
and  argued  for  a  separation  of  powers,  yet  considered  strong 
monarchy  a  necessary  and  desirable  feature  of  government  in  a 
large  country  such  as  France.1  The  more  plebeian  and  radical- 
minded  Rousseau,  starting  with  the  concept  of  a  primeval  state 
of  nature  in  which  men  led  a  care-free,  non-social  existence,  and 
assuming  that  government  was  originally  the  product  of  volun- 
tary contract,  developed  the  doctrine  that  sovereignty  resides 
only  in  the  body  politic,  that  law  is  the  expression  of  the  public 
will,  that  government  is  established  by  the  sovereign  people  as 
its  agent  to  execute  the  law,  that  the  ideal  state  would  be  one 
in  which  all  functions  of  government  were  discharged  by  the 
people  acting  directly,  and  that  where,  as  in  large  states,  some 
scheme  of  delegation  of  authority  becomes  necessary,  the  basis 
of  representation  should  be  men  considered  as  individuals,  not 
classes  or  interests  as  in  England.2 

The  writings  of  the  philosophers  were  important  rather  as  ex- 
pressing what  great  numbers  of  French  people  were  thinking  and 
feeling  than  as  propounding  views  that  were  original  or  novel. 
Every  cardinal  doctrine  —  limited  monarchy,  separation  of 
powers,  and  even  popular  sovereignty  —  had  been  voiced  by 
political  thinkers  now  and  again  from  Aristotle  onwards.  More 
immediately,  the  French  eighteenth  century  political  philosophy 
was  drawn  mainly  from  England.  For  hundreds  of  years  the 
English  constitution  developed  without  attracting  much  atten- 
tion from  continental  Europe.  Its  characteristics  and  advan- 
tages were  early  set  forth  in  English  books  that  were  not  un- 
known to  scholars  on  the  other  side  of  the  Channel,3  and  the 
French  writers  who  in  the  sixteenth  century  made  a  notable 
effort  to  introduce  the  principles  of  political  liberty  in  their  coun- 
try explicitly  invoked  English  experience  and  example.4     But 

1  De  V esprit  de  lots,  published  at  Geneva  in  1748.  On  Montesquieu's  political 
thought  see  Dunning,  Political  Theories  from  Luther  to  Montesquieu,  Chap.  xii.  _ 

2  Le  contrat  social,  published  at  Amsterdam  in  1762.  See  Dunning,  "The  Politi- 
cal Theories  of  Jean  Jacques  Rousseau,"  in  Polit.  Sci.  Quar.,  Sept.,  1909. 

3  Notably  Sir  John  Fortescue's  De  laudibus  legum  Angliae,  published  early  in  the 
sixteenth  century  (see  p.  26),  and  Thomas  Smith's  De  republica  Anglorum  libri 
ires,  published  in  1630. 

4 The  so-called  Monarchomachs.  See  Dunning,  "The  Monarchomachs,"  in 
Polit.  Sci.  Quar.,  June,  1904. 


362  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

late  in  the  century  Jean  Bodin,  who  knew  more  about  the  English 
government  than  any  of  his  contemporaries,  pronounced  the 
system  bad  as  being  "  mixed,"  and  restated  the  argument  for 
absolutism  in  a  form  which  held  general  support  for  upwards  of 

two  hundred  years.1 

The  eighteenth  century  brought  a  different  attitude.  The 
philosophic  spirit,  as  carried  into  the  field  of  political  science, 
led  to  a  genera]  inquiry  into  the  governments  and  laws  both  of 
antiquity  and  of  the  contemporary  world.  Some  of  the  re- 
formers, as  Rousseau  and  Mably,  found  their  models  in  the 
ancient  Greek  and  Roman  republics.  But  most  of  them  drew 
heavily  upon  England  for  ideas,  and  even  for  institutional  forms. 
Montesquieu  considered  that  England,  through  a  happy  com- 
bination of  circumstances,  had  largely  solved  the  problem  of 
political  liberty,  and  he  expounded  what  he  conceived  to  be-  the 
fundamental  feature  of  the  English  constitution,  i.e.,  the  separa- 
tion of  executive,  legislative,  and  judicial  powers,  with  a  view 
to  influencing  reconstruction  in  France  on  similar  lines.  Vol- 
taire lived  in  England  three  years  and  in  his  writings  continually 
referred  admiringly  to  English  life  and  institutions.  Montes- 
quieu, Rousseau,  and  in  fact  every  French  writer  who  dealt 
extensively  or  systematically  with  political  matters,  drew  heavily 
upon  John  Locke,  whose  Two  Treatises  of  Government,  pub- 
lished in  1689,  embodied  the  most  scientific  defense  of  the  Eng- 
lish Revolution  —  and  therefore  of  the  English  constitution  in 
its  modern,  liberalized  form  —  ever  made.  The  social  contract, 
government  with  limited  authority,  separation  of  powers,  popu- 
lar sovereignty,  the  right  of  resistance  to  tyranny,  inalienable 
individual  rights  to  life,  liberty,  and  property  —  these  are  all  in 
Locke,  and  all  were  taken  over  and  amplified  by  the  French 
school.2  Shortly  before  the  Revolution,  French  knowledge  of 
and  interest  in  English  political  principles  and  usages  were  yet 
further  increased  by  de  Lolme's  Constitution  de  V Angletcrre, 
published  in  1771,  and  by  Rlackstone's  Commentaries  on  the 
Laws  of  England,  published  in  1765,  and  soon  circulated  widely 
across  the  Channel  in  French  translation.3 

1  De  republica  libri  sex,  published  in  1576.  See  Dunning,  Political  Theories 
from  Luther  to  Montesquieu.  Chap.  iii. 

2  The  political  theory  underlying  the  American  Revolution  was  also  derived 
mainly  from  Locke  and  other  English  liberals.     It  va-  confirmed  and  strengthened 

ach  influences,  but  it  was  mainly  of  English  origin.     See  C.   E.  Merriam, 

;  merican  Political  77 
nil  political  thought  in  the  eighti  I  ury  is  fully  described  in  P.  Janet, 

nee  politique  dans  ses  rappc  :  ed.,  I'aris,  1887), 

II,  263-512,  635-692.     A  good  brief  survey  is  J.  H.  Reed,  "Constitutional  Theories 


THE  RISE  OF   CONSTITUTIONAL   GOVERNMENT    363 

Political  Character  of  the  Revolution.  —  Two  currents  of 
liberalism,  one  French  and  the  other  English,  thus  flowed  together 
in  the  second  half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  the  ever-swelling 
stream  beat  upon  the  retaining  walls  of  tradition,  privilege,  and 
absolutism  until  at  length  they  could  withstand  the  pressure  no 
longer.  The  old  regime  in  France  collapsed ;  a  new  order  arose, 
which,  notwithstanding  long  unsettlement  and  many  sharp 
reverses,  eventually  established  itself  securely ;  the  new  princi- 
ples, "  by  a  mighty  and  irresistible  contagion,"  as  a  French 
writer  puts  it,  won  the  greater  part  of  the  nations  of  Europe  and 
America,  which  gradually  modeled,  or  remodeled,  their  consti- 
tutions on  the  same  fundamental  pattern ;  and  thus  was  con- 
stituted the  common  fund  of  principles  and  institutions  in  the 
western  world  which  represents  modern  liberty.1 

Only  three  or  four  of  the  most  fundamental  contributions  of 
the  Revolution  itself  can  here  be  mentioned.  The  first  was  a 
body  of  general  political  principles,  drawn  mainly  from  the 
philosophical  sources  that  have  been  indicated,  and  set  forth 
with  great  clarity  and  force  in  the  first  part  of  the  "  Declaration 
of  the  Rights  of  Man  and  of  the  Citizen,"  adopted  by  the  Na- 
tional Assembly  on  August  26,  1789.  A  few  of  these  prin- 
ciples were:  (1)  men  are  born  free  and  remain  free  and  equal 
in  rights ;  (2)  the  aim  of  all  political  association  is  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  natural  and  imprescriptible  rights  of  man,  namely, 
liberty,  property,  security,  and  resistance  to  oppression ; 
(3)  sovereignty  resides  in  the  nation,  and  no  body  or  individual 
may  wield  any  authority  that  does  not  proceed  directly  from 
the  nation;  (4)  liberty  consists  in  the  freedom  to  do  everything 
which  injures  no  one  else ;  (5)  law  is  the  expression  of  the  public 
will,  and  every  person  has  a  right  to  participate,  personally  or 
through  his  representative,  in  making  it ;  (6)  law  must  be  the 
same  for  all,  whether  it  protects  or  punishes.2  A  second,  and 
closely  related,  contribution  was  a  comprehensive  and  authori- 

in  France  in  the  Seventeenth  and  Eighteenth  Centuries,"  in  Polit.  Sci.  Quar.,  Dec., 
1906. 

1  A.  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit  constitutionnel  franqais  et  compare  (4th  ed.,  Paris, 
1906),  42. 

2  This  Declaration,  framed  in  response  to  popular  demand  as  voiced  in  the 
cahiers,  was  eventually  incorporated  in  the  constitution  of  1791.  The  text,  in 
English  translation,  is  printed  in  F.  M.  Anderson,  Constitutions  and  other  Select 
Documents  Illustrative  of  the  History  of  France,  iy8g-igoy  (2d  ed.,  Minneapolis, 
1908),  59-61.  See  J.  H.  Robinson,  "The  French  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man," 
in  Pol.  Sci.  Quar.,  Dec,  1899;  G.  Jellinek,  Die  Erklarung  dcr  Mensch&n-  mid 
Burgerrechte  (2d  ed.,  Leipzig,  1904),  trans,  by  M.  Farrand  under  the  title  The  Decla- 
ration of  the  Rights  of  Man  and.  of  the  Citizen  (New  York,  1901) ;  and  V.  Marcaggi, 
Les  origines  de  la  declaration  des  droits  dc  Vhomme  en  i?8g. 


364  G0\  ERNMENTS  01     EUROPE 

tative  restatement  of  the  "natural  and  inalienable"  rights  of 
the  individual.  This  enumeration  was  mosl  clearly  made  in  the 
foregoing  Declaration  of  Rights;  and  among  the  rights  specially 
emphasized  were  freedom  from  arresl  or  imprisonment  except 
according  to  the  forms  prescribed  by  law;  freedom  of  religious 
belief ;  freedom  of  speech  ;  freedom  of  literary  expression  and  of  the 
press;  participation  (personally  or  by  representative)  in  the  vot- 
ing of  all  taxes;  immunity  of  property  from  confiscation  except 
under  legally  ascertained  public  necessity,  and  after  equitable 
compensation.1 

A  third  contribution  was  the  doctrine  of  the  written  constitu- 
tion. Prior  to  the  eighteenth  century,,  it  was  commonly  taken 
for  granted  that  fundamental  or  organic  law.  like  ordinary  law, 
should  rest  on  the  basis  of  custom,  and  hence  remain  unwritten, 
except  for  now  and  then  a  rule  or  stipulation  which,  as  a  result 
of  a  great  public  contract  or  in  some  other  manner,  should  find 
its  way  into  writing.  The  ultra-democratic  elements  in  Eng- 
land at  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  wanted  a  written 
constitution,  and  two  such  instruments  were  put  in  operation, 
one  in  1653  and  the  other  in  1657.2  This  movement,  however, 
was  sporadic;  and,  as  we  have  seen,  the  historic  English  constitu- 
tion has  never,  as  a  whole,  been  reduced  to  written  form.  Out- 
side of  England,  political  thinkers  and  leaders  in  the  eighteenth 
century  turned  generally,  however,  to  the  plan  of  a  written  con- 
stitution, so  constructed  as  to  embody  in  a  systematic  way  the 
fundamental  principles,  forms,  and  restrictions  under  which 
a  particular  government  should  be  carried  on.  The  idea  com- 
mended itself  in  a  special  degree  to  the  French  reformers,  partly 
because  they  were  becoming  convinced  of  the  general  superi- 
ority of  written  over  customary  law,  partly  because  they  looked 
upon  the  promulgation  of  a  written  constitution  newly  decreed 
by  the  sovereign  nation  as  in  effect  a  renewal  of  the  social  con- 
tract, and  partly  because  they  considered  that  a  written  con- 
stitution was  a  very  desirable  mean-  of  acquainting  the  people 
with  their  rights  and  developing  a  strong  attachment  thereto. 
There  was  the  added  influence  of  the  example  of  America,  where 
within  the  space  of  hardly  more  than  a  decade  two  federal 
constitutions  and  more  than  a  do/en  state  constitutions  were 
put  into  operation  by  direct  or  indirect  authority  of  the  people. 

1  On  the  general  question  of  individual  right  ei  1  mein,  Elements  <!>  droit  con- 
slituUonnel  (4th  ed.),    ^0-467,  and   L.   I)u^ruii,  Manuel  de  droit  constikttumnel 

(2d  ed.,  Paris,  1911),  200-286. 

2  See  p.  27. 


THE  RISE  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  GOVERNMENT    365 

In  accordance  with  a  general  demand  in  the  cahiers,  the  National 
Assembly  set  about  the  construction  of  a  written  constitution  in 
1789.  The  instrument  was  not  completed  until  1791.  But 
from  that  time  France,  despite  her  political  instability,  has  lived 
continuously  (save  for  insignificant  intervals)  under  a  written 
constitution.  She,  furthermore,  became  —  so  far  as  continental 
Europe  is  concerned  —  the  mother  of  written  constitutions. 
During  her  Revolutionary  and  Napoleonic  expansion  she  covered 
all  of  western  Europe  south  of  the  Baltic  with  constitutions 
drawn  on  the  model  of  her  own ;  and  when  her  power  receded 
to  its  former  limits,  the  idea  had  been  indelibly  impressed  upon 
the  progressive  elements  in  Germany,  Italy,  Spain,  and  else- 
where that  the  prime  condition  of  liberty  is  written  organic  law.1 

A  fourth  important  contribution  was  the  conception  of  repub- 
licanism as  a  practicable  form  of  government  for  France,  and 
hence,  by  implication,  for  other  large  and  venerable  European 
states.  The  relative  merits  of  republican  and  monarchical  politi- 
cal systems  had  been  a  subject  of  discussion  from  Plato  and 
Aristotle  onwards,  and  notable  experiments  had  been  made 
with  republican  government  by  ancient  Rome,  by  the  Italian 
city  states  of  the  Middle  Ages,  by  the  Dutch  provinces,  by 
Switzerland,  by  England  in  the  seventeenth  century,  and,  more 
recently,  by  the  United  States  of  America.  As  a  group,  the  eight- 
eenth century  philosophers  favored  monarchy.  Montesquieu 
conceded  that  no  single  form  of  government  is  best  under  all 
conditions,  but  he  held  that  a  republic  requires  not  only  a  small 
territory  but  a  high  level  of  public  virtue  and  an  absence  of 
luxury  and  large  fortunes.  Rousseau  considered  democracy 
workable  only  in  small  and  poor  states.  Voltaire,  too,  thought 
of  republicanism  only  in  terms  of  Greek  city  states  and  Swiss 
cantons,  and  said  that  the  regeneration  of  France  must  come 
from  benevolent  kingship.  Turgot  pronounced  all  republics 
of  history  disguised  aristocracies  and  argued  that  monarchy  is 
peculiarly  adapted  to  promote  the  general  happiness  of  mankind. 

The  establishment  of  the  American  republic  roused  keen 
interest  in  France,  but  it  did  not  turn  the  current  of  political 
reform  in  the  direction  of  republicanism.  The  cahiers  of  1789 
voiced  no  demand  for  a  republic.  The  National  Assembly  was 
thoroughly    monarchist,    and    the    constitution    which    it    pro- 

1  On  written  constitutions  in  general  see  Willoughby,  Government  of  Modern 
Slates,  Chap,  vi,  and  W.  A.  Dunning,  "European  Theories  of  Constitutional  Govern- 
ment after  the  Congress  of  Vienna,"  in  Polil.  Sci.^Quar.,  Mar.,  1919.  The  sub- 
ject is  considered  in  relation  to  France  in  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit  constitutionnel 
(4th  ed.),  468-502. 


GOVERNMENTS  OF   El  ROPE 

mulgated  in  1791  preserved  the  monarchy,  although  shorn  of 
many  earlier  prerogatives.  The  trend  of  events,  however, 
the  vacillations  and  ultimate  flight  of  the  king,  the  defiana  of 
popular  opinion  by  the  queen,  the  intrigues  of  the  nni^rcs  — 
inevitably  stimulated  republican  sentiment.  There  was  a 
distinct  republican  party  as  early  as  the  autumn  of  1790;  by  mid- 
summer of  171)1  the  radical  elements  were  turning  en  masse  to 
the  new  doctrine;  and  although  the  Legislative  Assembly,  whi<  h 
practically  governed  France  during  the  brief  life  of  the  con- 
stitution <>i  171)1.  was  monarchical,  the  whole  course  of  its  policy 
was  such  as  to  make  the  continuance  of  monarchy  impossible. 
On  September  21,  1792,  the  newly  chosen  Convention,  convinced 
that  no  other  course  was  possible,  unanimously  decreed  t la- 
abolition  of  monarchy  and  the  establishment  of  a  democratic, 
unitary  republic.  During  the  next  few  years  the  republican 
gospel  was  carried  by  French  armies  and  reformers  into  all  of 
the  surrounding  countries,  and  new  or  reconstructed  republics 
sprang  up  on  every  hand  ;  and,  although  these  creations  perished, 
and  the  parent  republic  itself  gave  way  before  the  monarchical 
aspirations  of  Napoleon,  republicanism  as  a  creed  and  a  program 
took  a  wholly  new  place  in  European  political  life.1 

Revolutionary  and  Napoleonic  Constitutions.  —  As  for  France 
herself,  the  nation,  having  suddenly  severed  its  political  ties 
with  the  past,  entered  upon  upwards  of  a  century  of  remarkable 
instability,  experimentation,  and  change.  Seven  distinct  con- 
stitutions were  put  into  operation  within  the  space  of  eighty- 
four  years ;  prior  to  the  establishment  of  the  Third  Republic, 
no  one  of  them  lasted  as  long  as  two  decades.  Each  of  these 
organic  laws,  none  the  less,  contributed  something  to  the  nation's 
political  experience,  and  before  turning  to  the  constitutional 
system  of  the  present  day  the  salient  features  of  these  earlier 
instruments  should  be  noted.2 

The  Revolution  itself  produced  three  successive  constitu- 
tions: (1)  that  of  September  3,  1791,  prepared  by  the  National 

1  II.  A.  I..  Fisher,  The  Republican  Tradition  in  Europe  (New  York,  mi  t), Chap. 

iv.     The  fullest  and  most  authoritative  account  of  the  growth  of  republicanism 

during  the  I  contained  in  I  .  A.  \ulard,  Histoire  politiqu*  >l<- la 

Ion  franqaise  (]  ,  trans,  by  B.  Miall  under  the  title  The  French 

Revolution,  0  Political  History  (London.   [910  .   II    Chaps,  ii   iv. 

2The  texts  of  all  French  constitutions  and  fundamental  laws  since  1789  are 

broupl;  ■  convenientlj  in  L.tDuguit  el  II.  Monnier, Les  constitutions  et  les 

principales  lois  politiques  de  hi  i  other  editions 

Helie,  I.<  •  constitutions  </<■  !•'  Frat  t88o),and  I-"..  Pierre,  Organisation 

des  pouvoirs  publics;   recueil  des  lois  constitutionneUes  et  organiqtu     (Paris,  1902). 

Qglish   versions  see  Anderson,  Constitutions.      There   IS  a    good   summary  in 
M.  Block,  Diclionnairc  gCiur.d  de  la  politique  (  Paris,  1S84),  I,  494-518. 


THE  RISE  OF   CONSTITUTIONAL   GOVERNMENT    367 

(or  Constituent)  Assembly  and  overthrown  by  the  uprising  of 
August  10,  1792;  (2)  that  of  February  15,  1793,  made  by  the 
Convention  but  never  put  into  effect ;  and  (3)  that  of  5  Fructidor 
of  the  Year  III  (August  22,  1795),  prepared  also  by  the  Con- 
vention and  in  operation  from  September  23,  1795,  to  the  coup 
d'etat  of  18  Brumaire  of  the  Year  VIII  (November  9,  1799). 
The  first  of  these  instruments  provided  for  limited  monarchy, 
ministers  subject  to  impeachment,  and  a  unicameral  Corps 
Legislatif  consisting  of  745  members  elected  for  two  years  in 
the  newly  created  departments,  on  the  principle  of  scrutin  de 
liste,  by  the  indirect  vote  of  male  citizens  twenty-five  years 
of  age  and  upwards  who  paid  direct  taxes  every  year  equivalent 
to  three  days'  labor.1  The  constitution  of  1793  was  a  radical 
instrument  providing  not  only  for  a  republic,  but  for  an  ultra- 
democratic  governmental  system,  whose  principal  features  were : 
(1)  a  unicameral  legislature  elected  indirectly  by  manhood  suf- 
frage for  one  year,  (2)  an  executive  council  of  twenty-four  mem- 
bers chosen  by  the  legislature  from  nominees  offered  by  the 
secondary  electors  in  the  departments,  and  (3)  the  reference 
of  proposed  laws  to  primary  assemblies  of  citizens  for  definitive 
action.  Although  ratified  by  the  people,  this  constitution,  as 
has  been  stated,  was  never  put  into  effect.2  The  instrument  of 
1795,  which  was  similarly  ratified  by  popular  vote,  was  also 
republican,  but  less  radical.  It  vested  the  legislative  power  in  a 
bicameral  parliament,  consisting  of  a  Council  of  Five  Hundred 
and  a  Council  of  Elders;  although  the  lower  chamber  alone 
could  originate  measures,  and  the  upper  could  only  pass  or  reject, 
but  not  amend,  them.  The  members  of  both  houses  were  chosen 
by  the  people  indirectly,  under  suffrage  arrangements  somewhat 
more  liberal  than  those  of  1791.  The  term  was  three  years,  and 
one  third  of  the  membership  was  renewed  every  year.  The 
executive  consisted  of  a  Directory  of  five  persons  chosen  for  a 
term  of  five  years,  one  member  retiring  annually.  Directors  were 
selected  by  the  Council  of  Elders  from  a  double  quota  of  nom- 
inees offered  by  the  Council  of  Five  Hundred.  The  principal 
innovation  was  the  bicameral  organization  of  the  legislature, 
which  until  now  had  been  generally  opposed  by  French  re- 
formers.3 

The  constitution  of  the  Year  VIII  (1799)  was  drawn  up  by 

1  For  changes  made  in  the  administrative  and  judicial  systems  see  pp.  466-467. 
The  constitution  of  1791  is  in  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  constitutions,  1-35,  and  Ander- 
son, Constitutions,  58-95. 

2  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  constitutions,  66-78;  Anderson,  Constitutions,  1 71-184. 

3  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  constitutions,  78-118 ;  Anderson,  Constitutions,  212-214. 


GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROP1 

Napoleon  and  Si6yes,  aided  by  two  commissions,  shortly  after 
the  coup  d'etat  which  made  the  Corsican  the  virtual  ruler  of  the 
country  ;  and.  amended  by  certain  organic  ena<  tments,  it  formed 
the  fundamental  law  under  which  Napoleon  governed  F ranee 
until  his  abdication  in  1814.  The  scheme  of  government  for 
which  itprovided,  if  not  deliberately  shaped  as  a  veil  for  despot- 
ism, readily  became  such  in  practice.  The  simple  bicameral 
[795  99  was  abandoned,  and  its  functions  were 
divided  among  as  many  a-  Eour  distincl  bodies:  a  Tribunate,  ol 
<»nc  hundred  members  elected  for  live  years,  which  gave  pre- 
liminary consideration  to  legislative  proposals;  a  Corps  Legis- 
late/, of  three  hundred  member-  elected  for  five  years,  which 
adopted  or  rejected  these  measures;  a  Senate',  of  eighty  life 
members,  which  determined  the  constitutionality  of  the  meas- 
ure- a-  passed  and  served  as  an  electoral  body;  and  a  Council 
of  State  charged  with  preparing  and  advocating  legislative  and 
administrative  measures  under  the  First  Consul's  direction.1 
Executive  power  was  lodged  in  three  consuls,  appointed  by  the 
Senate  for  ten  years  and  indefinitely  reeligible.  The  plan  of  a 
plural  executive  was  thus  nominally  retained.  But  the  con- 
stitution made  the  First  Consul  really  supreme  and  gave  his 
colleagues  only  a  "  consultative  voice  "  ;  and  in  practice  "  Citizen 
Bonaparte,"  who  was  named  in  the  instrument  as  First  Consul, 
easily  gathered  to  himself  complete  control.  The  provision  that 
no  edict  of  the  government  should  have  effect  unless  signed  by  a 
minister  was  of  no  practical  consequence;  and  it  was  a  change 
of  form  rather  than  of  fact  when,  in  1802,  Napoleon  was  made 
consul  for  life,  and  eyen  when,  in  1804.  the  Consulate  was  con- 
verted  into  the  Empire.2 

The  Constitutional  Charter  (1814-48). —  On  May  3,  1814,  — 
three  weeks  after  Napoleon  signed  the  act  of  abdication  -the 
restored  Bourbon  king,  Louis  XVTII,  entered  Paris,  and  six 
weeks  later  a  new  constitution,  prepared  by  a  commission  con- 
sisting of  three  representatives  of  the  crown,  nine  senators,  and 
nine  members  of  the  Corps  Legislate/,  was  promulgated.  With 
some  important  changes,  introduced  mainly  in  1830,  this  Consti- 

1  The  Council  of  Stat    /as  appointed  by  the  First  Consul.     'I  ;  rs  were 

,  hosen  by  coaptation,  and  the  members  of  the  Tribunate  and  L<  gislative  Body  were 

ed  from  a  list  of  eligible    presented,  by  a  very  roundabout  pr is,  by  the 

people. 

*Duguil  (i  Monnier,  Les  constitutions,  .iS-i2o;  Anderson,  Constitutions, 
270-281.  The  constitution  <>i  1705,  in  377  articles,  was  one  <»f  the  lengthiest  in- 
struments of  the  kind  ever  formulated;  that  of  1799,  in  95  articles,  was  notably 
briefer. 


THE   RISE  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL   GOVERNMENT     369 

tutional  Charter  remained  the  fundamental  law  of  France  until 
the  revolution  of  1848.  The  new  system  of  government  showed 
strong  traces  of  English  influence.  Indeed,  it  was  designed  to 
be  a  liberal,  constitutional  monarchy  on  the  English  model,  and 
it  is  from  this  time  that  one  dates  the  deliberate  attempt  in  France 
to  build  up  a  cabinet  system  based  on  English  principles.  There 
was  no  desire  to  adopt  the  English  scheme  of  responsible  govern- 
ment with  all  of  its  consequences  and  implications.  But  the 
system  set  up  admitted  of  close  comparison,  and  it  was  decidedly 
more  liberal  than  that  which  had  passed  away  with  Napoleon. 
The  king  was  endowed  with  the  power  to  issue  ordinances,  make 
appointments,  declare  war,  conclude  treaties,  and  initiate  all 
legislation.  But  no  tax  could  be  levied  and  no  law  could  be 
made  without  the  assent  of  Parliament,  and  the  ministers  were 
declared  not  only  liable  to  impeachment  but  "  responsible." 
The  bicameral  principle  was  now  definitely  revived,  and  Parlia- 
ment was  made  to  consist  of  a  Chamber  of  Peers,  composed  of 
appointees  of  the  crown  in  heredity  or  for  life,  and  a  Chamber 
of  Deputies,  composed  of  representatives  elected  in  the  depart- 
ments for  five  years,  one  fifth  retiring  annually.  Parliament 
was  required  to  meet  at  least  once  every  year ;  and,  although 
lacking  direct  legislative  initiative,  either  house  might  petition 
the  king  to  submit  a  measure  upon  any  specific  subject.1 

The  Charter  prescribed  the  qualifications  of  voters  and  of 
deputies,  but  did  not  define  the  manner  in  which  deputies  should 
be  chosen.  The  lack  was  supplied  by  an  electoral  law  of  1817, 
which  provided  that  the  electors  —  men  thirty  years  of  age  and 
upwards  who  each  year  paid  a  direct  tax  of  at  least  three  hundred 
francs  —  should  assemble  in  the  principal  town  of  the  department 
and  there  choose  on  a  general  ticket,  i.e.,  by  scrutin  de  liste, 
whatever  number  of  deputies  the  department  was  entitled  to 
elect  at  the  given  time.  The  system  proved  of  pronounced  ad- 
vantage to  the  liberal  elements,  whose  strength  lay  mainly  in 
the  towns,  and  in  1820,  the  conservatives  forced  through  a  meas- 
ure increasing  the  membership  of  the  Chamber  from  258  to  430 
and  substituting  the  arrondissement  for  the  department  as  the 
electoral  area.  Each  arrondissement  became  a  single-member 
district,  and  the  arrondissements  as  such  returned  258  members. 
The  remaining  172  were  elected  at  the  chief  departmental  towns 
by  the  voters  of  the  department  who  paid  the  most  taxes,  an 
arrangement  under  which  some  twelve  thousand  of  the  wealthier 

1  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  constitutions,  183-190;  Anderson,  Constitution';. 
457-465- 


370  GOVERNMENTS   01    EUROPE 

electors  gained  a  double  vote.  Voting  was  by  ballot,  hut  the 
elector  was  required  to  write  out  his  ballot  in  the  presence  of  an 
appointee  of  the  government  and  to  phut-  it  in  his  hands  un- 
folded.1  A  law  of  [824  further  altered  the  system  by  making 
the  Chamber  renewable  integrally  for  a  term  of  seven  years. 

Upon  the  abdication  of  Charles  X  as  a  result  of  the  uprising 
of  18,^0,  a  parliamentary  commission  revised  the  Charter,  and 
the  new  sovereign,  Louis  Philippe,  accepted  it  in  its  liberalized 
form.  The  preamble  of  the  original  instrument,  which  indi- 
cated that  the  constitution  was  a  grant  from  the  crown,  was 
dropped.  Suspension  of  the  laws  by  the  sovereign  was  pro- 
hibited, and  both  chambers  were  given  the  right  to  initiate 
legislation.  The  sessions  of  the  Chamber  of  Peers  were  made 
public,  and  a  law  of  the  following  war  terminated  the  creation 
of  hereditary  peerages.  The  integral  renewal  of  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies  was  continued,  but  the  term  was  restored  to  live 
years,  and  the  age  required  of  electors  was  reduced  from  thirty 
to  twenty-live  years.  Finally,  a  law  of  [831  lowered  the  tax 
qualifications  for  voters  from  three  hundred  francs  to  two  hun- 
dred, and  for  certain  professional  classes  to  one  hundred.  This 
doubled  the  electorate,  although  even  now  the  voters  formed  only 
one-hundred-fiftieth  of  the  population.  The  government  of  the 
Orleanist  period  was  not  much  more  democratic  than  that  which 
it  supplanted ;  at  the  most,  it  was  a  government  by  and  for  the 
well-to-do  middle  class.2 

The  Second  Republic  and  the  Second  Empire.  —  Following 
the  collapse  of  the  Orleanist  monarchy  as  a  result  of  the  uprising 
of  February,  1848,  France  entered  upon  a  period  which  was 
almost  as  unsettled  politically  as  the  years  1789-95.  For  half 
a  decade  the  nation  again  experimented  with  republicanism, 
only  to  emerge  a  monarchy,  an  empire,  and  the  dominion  of  a 
Bonaparte.  The  provisional  government,  which  was  one  of  the 
first  products  of  the  revolution,  tentatively  proclaimed  a  re- 
public, and  the  people  were  called  upon  to  elect,  under  a  system 
of  direct  manhood  suffrage,  an  assembly  to  frame  a  constitution. 
The  elections  —  the  first  of  their  kind  in  the  history  of  France  — 
were  held  on  April  23,  1848,  and  the  National  Constituent 
Assembly,  consisting  of  nine  hundred  members,  of  whom  eight 
hundred  were  moderate  republicans,  met  on  May  4  in  Paris. 
During  the  summer  the  draft  of  a  constitution,  prepared  by  a 

1  Duguil  et  Monnk-r,  Les  constitutions,  206-209. 

d.,  213-218,  219-230.     And  tstitutions,  507-513.     See  G.  Weill,  La 

France  sous  la  monarchic  constitutionnelU  ,  t8l  /  1848  (new  cd.,  Paris,  1912). 


THE  RISE  OF   CONSTITUTIONAL   GOVERNMENT    371 

committee  of  eighteen,  was  duly  debated,  and  on  November  4 
it  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  739  to  30. 

The  constitution  of  1848  declared  the  republic  perpetual  and 
the  people  sovereign.  It  asserted,  furthermore,  that  the  sepa- 
ration of  powers  is  the  first  condition  of  a  free  government.  It 
provided  for  a  legislative  assembly  consisting  of  a  single  chamber 
of  750  members  l  chosen  integrally  for  three  years,  directly  by 
secret  ballot  on  the  principle  of  departmental  scrutin  de  liste, 
and  by  electors  whose  only  necessary  qualifications  were  the  age 
of  twenty-one  and  upwards  and  full  possession  of  civil  rights. 
Executive  power  was  vested  in  a  president  of  the  republic,  elected 
for  a  term  of  four  years  by  direct  and  secret  ballot,  and  by 
absolute  majority  of  all  votes  cast  in  France  and  Algeria.  Under 
stipulated  conditions,  e.g.,  if  no  candidate  should  receive  an 
absolute  majority  and  at  the  same  time  a  total  of  at  least  two 
million  votes,  the  president  was  to  be  chosen  by  the  Assembly 
from  the  five  candidates  who  had  polled  the  largest  votes ;  and 
a  president  could  not  be  reelected  until  he  had  been  out  of  office 
at  least  four  years.  The  powers  given  the  president  were  large 
and  included  proposing  laws,  negotiating  and  ratifying  treaties 
with  the  consent  of  the  Assembly,  appointing .  and  dismissing 
ministers  and  other  civil  and  military  ofiicers,  and  disposing 
of  the  armed  forces.  On  the  functions  and  relations  of  the 
ministers  the  constitution  was  curiously  vague,  and  whether 
the  instrument  might  legitimately  be  construed  to  make  pro- 
vision for  a  cabinet  system  of  government  was  a  much  discussed 
question  throughout  the  brief  period  of  its  duration.2 

In  December,  1848,  Louis  Napoleon,  nephew  of  Napoleon  I, 
was  chosen  president  by  a  heavy  majority,  and  ten  days  later 
he  assumed  office.  In  May,  1849,  an  Assembly  was  elected, 
of  whose  members  two  thirds  were  thoroughgoing  monarchists ; 
so  that,  as  one  writer  has  put  it,  both  the  president  and  the 
majority  of  the  Assembly  were,  by  reason  of  their  very  being, 
enemies  of  the  constitution  under  which  they  had  been  elected.3 
The  new  order,  furthermore,  failed  completely  to  strike  root 
throughout  the  nation  at  large,  and  the  collapse  of  the  republic 
became  only  a  question  of  time.     An  electoral  law  of  May  31, 

1  Including  representatives  of  Algeria  and  the  colonies. 

2  See  Dupriez,  Les  ministres,  II,  308-312.  The  text  of  the  constitution  of  184S 
is  in  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  constitutions,  232-246,  and  Anderson,  Constitutions, 
522-537.  See  also  Fisher,  Republican  Tradition  in  Europe,  Chap,  viii,  and  espe- 
cially E.  N.  Curtis,  The  French  Assembly  of  1S4S  and  American  Constitutional  Doctrine 
(New  York,  1918). 

3  Hazen,  Europe  since  181 5,  201. 


372  C.<)\  KRXMKNTS    ()l     II  Kol'l'. 

1850,  requiring  of  the  elector  .1  fixed  residence  <>i"  three  years 

id  of  six  in. mtlis,  upset  the  recently  established  sufl 
arrangements  and  reduced  the  electorate  by  three  millions,  or 
practically  one  third;  and  on  December  2,  [851,  a  carefully 
planned  coup  d'etat  look  place,  when  the  Assembly  was  dis- 
solved, the  franchise  law  of  [849  was  restored,  and  the  people, 
gathered  in  primary  assemblies,  were  called  upon  to  intrust  to 
the  president  power  to  revise  the  national  constitution.1  By 
a  vote  of  7,4^9,216  to  640,737,  the  electorate  complied.  There- 
after, although  continuing  officially  through  another  year,  the 
republic  was  in  reality  dead.  On  November  7,  1852,  the  veil 
was  thrown  off.  A  senatus-consulte  decreed  the  reestablish- 
ment  of  the  Empire,2  and  eleven  days  later  the  people,  by  a  vote 
of  7,824,189  to  253,145.  sanctioned  what  had  been  done.  On 
December  2,  the  anniversary  of  Austerlitz,  Napoleon  III  was 
proclaimed  emperor  of  the  French. 

Meanwhile,  in  March,  a  constitution,  nominally  republican, 
but  in  reality  strongly  resembling  that  in  force  during  the  later 
years  of  Napoleon  I,  had  been  put  into  operation,  and  the  sub- 
stitution of  an  emperor  for  a  president  upon  whom  had  been 
conferred  a  ten-year  term  was  only  a  matter  of  detail.  A 
senatus-considte  of  December  25  made  the  necessary  adjustments  ; 
and  the  constitution  of  1852,  with  occasional  modifications, 
remained  the  fundamental  law  of  France  until  the  collapse  of 
the  Second  Empire  in  1870.  The  emperor  was  endowed  with 
very  extended  powers.  His  control  of  the  administrative  sys- 
tem was  made  practically  absolute.  He  commanded  the  army 
and  navy,  decided  upon  war  and  peace,  concluded  treaties,  and 
granted  pardons.  He  alone  had  the  power  to  initiate  legislation 
and  to  promulgate  the  laws.  To  him  alone  all  ministers  were 
responsible;  not  a  shred  of  cabinet  government  remained. 
There  were  two  legislative  chambers:  a  Corps  Legislatif  of  251 
members  elected  by  direct  manhood  suffrage  every  six  years, 
and  a  Senate  composed  of  cardinals,  admirals,  and  other  cx-officio 
members,  together  with  life  appointees  of  the  emperor.  The 
powers  of  the  Senate  were  exercised  in  close  conjunction  with 
the  head  of  the  state  and  were  of  some  importance,  but  those  of 
the  popular  chamber  amounted  to  little;  so  that  the  liberal 
suffrage  arrangements  were  of  small  practical  effect.3 

1   \rulerson,  Constitutions,  53.S^:;43., 

*Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  constitutions,  290-292;  Anderson,  Constitutions,  560- 
561. 

3  Du^uit  t-t  Monnier,  Les  constitutions,  274-280;  Anderson,  Constitutions, 
543-540- 


THE  RISE  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL   GOVERNMENT    373 

For  upwards  of  a  score  of  years  Hie  illusion  of  popular  govern- 
ment was  cleverly,  and  more  or  less  successfully,  maintained. 
The  country  was  prosperous  and   the  government,  if  illiberal, 
was  on  the  whole  enlightened.     Discontent,  none  the  less,  fre- 
quently manifested  itself,  and  during  the  second  half  of  the  reign 
the  Emperor  more  than  once  found  it  expedient  to  make  some 
concession   to   public   sentiment.     In   the   later   sixties  he  was 
compelled  to  relax  the  vigor  of  the  laws  dealing  with  the  press 
and  with  political  meetings,  and   in  1869-70  he  was  brought 
to  the  point  of  approving  a  series  of  measures  which  promised 
a  liberalization   of    the   entire   governmental   system.     One   of 
these  measures  was  a  senatus-consulte  of  September  8,   1869, 
opening  the  sittings  of  the  Senate  to   the  public,   giving  the 
Legislative  Body  the  right  to  elect  its  own  officials,  and  nom- 
inally reestablishing  the  cabinet  system.1     On  account  of  the 
fact,  however,  that  ministers  were  not  permitted  to  be  members 
of  either  the  Legislative  Body  or  the  Senate,  and  that  they  were 
declared  to  be  still  responsible  to  the  crown,  the  immediate  effects 
of  the  last-mentioned  feature  of  the  reform  were  slight.    A  senatus- 
consulte  of  April  20, 1870  (approved  by  a  plebiscite  of  May  8),  made 
other  and  more  important  changes.     In  the  first  place,  the  Senate, 
which  hitherto  had  been  virtually  an  Imperial  council,  was  erected 
into  a  legislative  chamber  coordinate  with  the  Legislative  Body, 
and  both  houses  received  the  right  to  initiate  legislation.     In 
the  second  place,  the  provision  that  the  ministers    should  be 
solely  dependent  upon  the  emperor  was  stricken  from  the  con- 
stitution, thus  clearing  the  way  for  a  more  effective  realization 
of  the  principle  of  cabinet  government.     Finally,  it  was  stipu- 
lated that  the  constitution  should  henceforth  be  amended  only 
with  the  express  approval  of  the  people.     These  reforms,  how- 
ever, were  belated.     They  were  grudgingly  conceded  only  after 
the  popularity  of  the  Emperor  and  of  his  system  had  been  strained 
to  the  breaking  point,  and  the  almost  immediate  beginning  of  the 
war  with  Germany  gave  no  time  in  which  to  test  their  efficacy.2 

1  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  constitutions,  307-308 ;  Anderson,  Constitutions, 
579-58o.  .      . 

2  The  measure  of  April  20,  1870,  is  in  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Lcs  constitutions, 
308-314,  and  Anderson,  Constitutions,  581-586.  The  period  is  admirably  surveyed 
in  H.  Berton,  devolution  constitutionnel  du  second  empire  (Paris,  1900).  Two  con- 
temporary books  in  which  the  faults  of  the  Second  Empire  are  analyzed  and  pro- 
posed remedies,  including  the  establishment  of  a  republic,  are  duly  considered,  are 
Prevost-Paradol,  La  France  nouvelle  (Paris,  1868),  and  Due  de  Broglie,  Vues  sur  le 
gouvemement  de  la  France  (Paris,  1870).  The  lattej  was  written  in  1861.  Both 
authors  were  moderate  monarchists.  See  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit  constitutionnel 
(4th  ed.),  530-531,  and  Hanotaux,  Contemporary  France,  III,  318-322. 


CHAPTER  XXT 

THE    CONSTITUTION    OF   THE   THIRD   REPUBLIC 

Collapse  of  the  Second  Empire  and  Problem  of  a  New  Govern- 
ment. -The  Third  Republic  was  set  up  under  circumstances 
that  gave  promise  of  even  less  stability  than  was  revealed  by 
its  predecessors  of  1792  and  1848.  Proclaimed  in  the  dismal 
days  following  the  French  defeat  at  Sedan,  it  owed  its  existence, 
at  the  outset,  to  the  fact  that,  with  the  capture  of  Napoleon  III 
by  the  Prussians  and  the  utter  collapse  of  the  Empire,  there  had 
arisen,  as  Thiers  put  it,  "  a  vacancy  of  power."  The  proclama- 
tion was  issued  from  the  Hotel  de  Ville  September  4,  1870, 
by  a  self-appointed  group  of  deputies  of  the  Left,  (led  by  Gam- 
betta  and  Favre),  when  the  war  with  Prussia  had  been  in  progress 
seven  weeks ;  and  during  the  remaining  five  months  of  the  con- 
test sovereign  authority  was  exercised  by  a  Provisional  Govern- 
ment of  National  Defense,  with  General  Trochu  at  its  head. 
Upon  the  capitulation  of  Paris,  January  28,  1871  (followed  by 
an  armistice),  elections  were  ordered  for  a  national  assembly, 
whose  function  would  be  to  decide  whether  it  was  possible  to 
continue  the  war  or  necessary  to  submit  to  peace,  and  in  the  latter 
case,  what  terms  of  peace  should  be  accepted.  There  was  no 
time  for  framing  a  new  electoral  system.  Consequently,  the 
electoral  arrangements  of  the  Second  Republic,  established  by  a 
law  of  March  15,  1849,  were  revived;  and  on  February  8  an 
assembly  of  758  members,  representing  both  France  and  the 
colonies,  was  chosen  by  manhood  suffrage. 

When,  on  February  13,  this  National  Assembly  convened  at 
Bordeaux,  it  found  itself  the  sole  repository  of  governmental 
authority.  The  emperor,  the  Senate,  the  Corps  LegislaHf,  the 
ministry  —  all  were  gone;  never,  even  in  1792  and  1848,  had 
the  field  been  more  clear  of  debris  left  by  an  old  regime.  Even  the 
Government  of  National  Defense,  which,  acting  by  the  tacit 
consent  of  the  nation,  had  held  things  together,  not  without 
glory,  during  the  "  vacancy  of  power,"  dissolved  immediately 
after  it  gave  the  country  an  elected  assembly,  as  it  had  pledged 
itself  to  do.     In  view  of  these  facts,  the  Assembly  found  itself 

374 


THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  THIRD   REPUBLIC    375 

at  once  possessed  of  full  powers  as  a  government.  It  was  the 
only  legal  representative  of  the  national  sovereignty,  and  there 
was  no  constitution  to  restrict  its  authority.  No  definite  re- 
straints had  been  imposed  by  the  electorate,  either  on  what  the 
body  might  do  or  on  the  duration  of  its  power.  The  result  was 
that  the  Assembly  forthwith  became  the  government,  and  it 
remained  such  for  approximately  five  years. 

At  all  events,  it  held  full  control  of  the  political  machinery 
and  itself  acted  as  the  national  legislature.  It  might  have 
kept  the  executive  power,  too,  in  its  own  hands,  by  exercising 
it  through  committees,  as  the  Long  Parliament  in  England,  the 
Continental  Congress  in  America,  and  the  French  Convention 
of  1792-95  had  done  in  a  similar  situation.  On  this  point, 
however,  it  chose  a  different  course,  partly  out  of  deference  to 
the  doctrine  of  separation  of  powers,  partly  because  events  had 
in  advance  designated  a  titulary  of  the  executive  power  in  the 
person  of  the  historian  and  parliamentarian  Thiers.  Conse- 
quently, on  February  17,  the  Assembly  conferred  on  Thiers  the 
title  of  "  chief  of  the  executive  power,"  and,  having  voted  almost 
unanimously  for  peace,  instructed  him  to  enter  upon  negotia- 
tions. The  executive  function  was  delegated  without  fixed 
time ;  it  was  to  be  exercised  by  the  chief  with  the  aid  of  ministers 
whom  he  appointed ;  and  it  was  revocable  at  the  Assembly's 
will.  For  the  time  being,  Thiers  retained  membership  in  the 
Assembly.1 

More  perplexing  than  the  task  of  arranging  for  the  immediate 
management  of  the  country's  affairs  was  the  problem  of  a  perma- 
nent governmental  system.  Most  people  assumed  not  only  that 
the  Assembly  was  entitled  to  exercise  constituent  power  but  that 
one  of  its  main  duties  was  to  give  France  a  constitution  ;  although 
from  the  first  there  were  those  who  held  that,  in  the  absence  of 
an  express  mandate  from  the  nation,  such  a  proceeding  would  be 
a  sheer  assumption  of  authority.  The  Assembly,  as  a  whole, 
had  no  doubts  upon  its  rights  in  the  matter,  although  it  was  dis- 
posed to  postpone  the  work  until  the  treaty  of  peace  should  have 
been  signed.  Discussion  of  the  subject,  however,  could  not  long 
be  repressed,  and  it  soon  became  apparent  that  upon  the  funda- 
mental question  of  what  form  the  new  government  should  take 
there  were  two  main  proposals.     One  was  monarchy,  of  a  more 

1  The  earlier  work  of  Ihe  National  Assembly  is  fully  and  authoritatively  described 
in  G.  Hanotaux,  Histoire  de  la  France  contemporaine  (Paris,  1903-08),  trans,  by  J.  C. 
Tarver  and  E.  Sparvel-Bayly  under  the  title  Contemporary  France  (New  York, 
1903-09),  I,  Chaps,  i-vi. 


376  GO\  ERNMENTS  01     El  ROPE 

or  less  Limited  sort;  the  other  was  republicanism.  The  mon- 
archists fell  into  three  groups.  A  party  ol  Legitimists,  i.e., 
adherents  of  the  old  Bourbon  monarchy,  wanted  a  kingdom  under 
the  Count  iA  Chambord,  grandson  of  the  Charles  X  who  was 
deposed  at  the  revolution  of  1830.  A  party  of  Orleanists  desired 
a  restoration  of  the  house  of  Orleans,  overthrown  in  1848,  in  the 
pnson  of  the  Count  of  Paris,  a  grandson  of  the  citizen-king 
Louis  Philippe.  A  smaller  group  of  members  who,  despite  the 
discredit  which  the  house  of  Bonaparte  bad  suffered  as  a  result 
of  the  war,  remained  loyal  to  the  Napoleonic  tradition,  was 
committed  to  a  revival  of  the  prostrate  empire  of  the  captive 
Napoleon  III. 

The  republicans,  who  were  strong  in  Paris  and  in  the  south- 
western parts  of  the  country,  aimed,  of  course,  to  prevent  the 
reappearance  of  monarchy  in  any  form.  They  were  outnumbered  1 
five  to  two  in  the  Assembly,1  and  on  this  account  it  was  chiefly 
they  who  argued  that  the  body  had  received  a  limited  mandate 
and  had  no  authority  to  frame  a  constitution.  They  said,  as 
was  true,  that  the  members  had  been  chosen  primarily  for  their 
viewrs  as  to  peace  rather  than  as  to  constitutional  forms.  Their 
outlook,  even  in  the  present  Assembly,  was,  however,  far  from 
hopeless,  in  view  of  the  division  in  the  monarchist  ranks ;  and 
when  the  triumph  of  the  republican  cause  became  rcasonablv 
assured,  most  of  them  acquiesced  in  the  Assembly's  exercise  of 
constituent  power. 

Origins  of  a  Cabinet  System:  the  Rivet  Law.  —  After  the 
treaty  of  Frankfort  was  signed,  on  May  10,  the  primary  object 
for  which  the  Assembly  was  elerted  could  be  regarded  as  attained. 
Despite  republican  demands  that  the  body  declare  its  task  com- 
pleted and  give  way  to  a  new  agency  S]  >e<  tally  chosen  for  the  work 
of  constitution-framing,  there  was,  however,  no  indication  of 
purpose  to  pursue  such  a  course.  Already  the  body  was  actively 
instituting  measures  to  aid  the  country's  recovery  from  the  effects 
of  the  war ;  it  had  transferred  its  seat  from  Bordeaux  to  Versailles, 
and  had  taken  vigorous  and  effective  steps  to  suppress  the  com- 
munard uprising  of  April  and  May  in  Paris.-     Far  from  relinquish- 

1  Of  avowed  Legitimists  there  were  about  150;  of  Bonapartisl  not  over  30; 
of  Republicans,  about  250.    The  remaining  members  were  Orleanists  or  men  of 

uncertain  M   no  time  was  tin-  hill  membership  of  the  Assembly  in  at- 

tendance.    See  ('•    Weill,  Histoire  du  parti  ripubHcain  <n  France  de  1814  a  1870 
(Paris,  1 000). 

-  The  Commune  was  a  movement  in  protest  against  a  <  enl  ralized  form  of  govern 
ment,  whether  monarchist  or  republican.    The  communards  wanted  a  system  based 
on  a  federation  of  communes. 


THE   CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  THIRD   REPUBLIC    377 

ing  power,  it  gave  every  evidence  of  intention  to  keep  its  hand  on 
the  situation  indefinitely,  and  to  give  the  country  the  strong 
government  that  it  needed  while  the  work  of  constitution-making 
was  going  forward  deliberately,  and  even  leisurely. 

A  practical  difficulty  in  the  existing  arrangements  was  the 
anomalous  position  of  Thiers  as  chief  executive,  and  of  the  min- 
isters. With  a  view  to  organizing  the  government  on  a  more 
definite  basis,  Charles  Rivet,  deputy  for  the  Correze  and  friend 
of  Thiers,  introduced,  on  August  12,  a  resolution  to  the  effect 
that  Thiers  should  be  given  the  title  of  president  of  the  republic, 
that  he  should  retain  office  for  three  years  unless  the  Assembly 
should  sooner  be  dissolved,  and  that  the  ministers  should  be  made 
directly  and  completely  responsible  to  the  Assembly.  The  ob- 
vious intention  was  to  introduce  a  cabinet  system  on  the  English 
model ;  the  president,  being  immovable,  would  cease  to  be  re- 
sponsible, and  the  ministers  would  become  the  working,  re- 
sponsible executive.  Although  inclining  strongly  to  the  cabinet 
type  of  government,  the  Assembly  was  not  ready  to  go  as  far 
as  Rivet  proposed,  and  the  program  was  considerably  altered 
before  being  adopted.  As  passed  on  August  31  (by  a  vote  of 
491  to  94),  the  Rivet  law  gave  Thiers  the  title  of  president  and 
declared  the  ministers  responsible  to  the  Assembly,  yet  reiterated 
the  responsiblity  of  the  president  himself  to  that  body  and  indi- 
cated that  his  powers,  which  were  increased  in  several  directions 
at  this  time,  were  to  be  construed  as  having  been  conferred  for 
as  long  as  the  Assembly  itself  should  last.1 

This  legislation  was  of  some  benefit.  The  title  of  president 
had  a  certain  definiteness  ;  the  important  principle  of  ministerial 
responsibility  had  been  clearly  proclaimed.  Fundamentally, 
however,  the  new  arrangements  were  less  satisfactory  than  those 
which  they  supplanted.  The  Assembly  had  attempted  the  feat  of 
making  parliamentary  responsibility  reside  at  the  same  time  in 
the  titulary  executive  and  in  the  ministers,  and  little  experience 
was  needed  to  prove  that  this  was  impossible.  What  actually 
happened  was  that  Thiers  kept  up  his  close  working  relations 
with  the  Assembly,  took  a  personal  and  active  part  in  its  deliber- 
ations, and  bore  direct  responsibility  to  it,  while  ministerial 
responsibility  was  hardly  more  than  a  name. 

To  the  general  demand  for  further  reconstruction  of  the 
system,  Thiers  added  the  weight  of  his  voice  in  a  message  of 
November  13,  1872  ;   and  on  March  13,  1873,  a  new  and  signif- 

1  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Lcs  constitutions,  315-316;  Anderson,  Constitutions, 
604-606;   Hanotaux,  Contemporary  France,  I,  Chap,  iv. 


378  GOVERNMEN  I-  01     EUROPE 

icant  law  was  passed.  The  origina]  objeel  of  the  measure  was 
to  restrict  the  personal  interventioD  and  influence  of  the  presi- 
dent in  the  Assembly's  proceedings.  This  might  have  been  done 
by  excluding  him  from  membership.  Hut  Thiers  objected  so  vig- 
orously that  tin-  idea  was  nut  pressed.  It  might  also  have  been 
accomplished  by  relieving  the  president  of  responsibility  to  the 
body.  Hut  the  Assembly  did  uol  desire  to  do  this.  It  believed, 
with  the  Due  de  Broglie.  that  while  in  a  constitutional  monarchy 
the  titulary  head  may  be  immune  from  responsibility,  the  presi 
dent,  or  other  head,  of  a  republic  must  be  responsible,  by  virtue  <>!' 
the  very  principle  of  republicanism.1  Thus  far  in  the  world's 
experience  the  cabinet  system  had  been  confined  to  monarchies, 
and  the  French  lawmakers  of  187.}  must  not  be  too  severely 
criticized  for  failing  to  see  that  the  system  can,  indeed  must, 
work  under  the  same  principles,  whatever  title  the  nominal  head 
of  the  state  may  bear.  As  finally  passed,  therefore,  the  law  of 
1873  did  not  go  farther  than  to  define  the  conditions  under  which 
the  president  might  address  the  Assembly  and  to  throw  special 
safeguards  around  the  right  of  the  body  to  deliberate  on  his  pro- 
posals in  his  absence;  although,  by  way  of  compensation,  it 
bestowed  on  him  a  weak  form  of  veto. 

Failure  of  the  Monarchist  Programs.  Meanwhile  Thiers, 
who  began  as  a  constitutional  monarchist,  came  to  the  view  that 
a  republican  form  of  government  would  be  most  likely  to  win  the 
general  support  of  the  people,  and  late  in  1872  he  put  himself 
definitely  among  the  adherents  of  the  republican  program.  This 
naturally  aroused  the  monarchist ;  and  when,  on  May  19, 
1873,  Dufaure  (vice-president  of  the  council  of  ministers,  and  an 
appointee  of  Thiers)  submitted  to  the  Assembly  the  draft  of  a 
republican  constitution,-  they  buried  their  differences  long  enough 
to  defeat  the  plan,  and  force  the  president's  resignation.''  They 
now  felt  that  the  time  had  come  to  end  a  regime  which  they  had 
assumed  from  the  first  to  be  temporary,  and  for  a  short  while  the 
tide  ran  strongly  in  their  favor.  They  elected  to  the  presidency 
Marshal  MacMahon,  who  not  only  was  a  monarchist,  but,  being 
a  soldier  rather  than  a  parliamentarian  and  orator,  did  not  care 
to  take  an  active  part  in  politics  ;  besides,  he  was  not  a  member 

1  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit  constUutionnel  (4th  ed.),  515 

2  Journal  officii- 1,  May  20,  1S73,  p.  3208. 

3  Anderson,  Constitutions.  (>22-<>2-j;  A.  Leffcvre  Pontalis,  "I. 'Asm  mblee  rationale 
ii  M.  Thiers,"  in  I.r  Correspondant,  Feb.  10,  1879;  Hanotaux,  Contemporary 
France,  I,  Chap,  x;  II,  Chap,  i ;  A.Thiers,  Notes et  Souvenirs  de  i<j<>  a  1873  (Paris, 
1903)',  ]•  Simon,  Le  gouvernemeni  dt  .!/.  Thiers  (Paris,  1878);  E.  de  Marcere, 
VAssemblee  nationale  dc  iSji  (I'aris,  1904). 


THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  THIRD   REPUBLIC    379 

of  the  Assembly.  They  set  up  a  "  coalition  "  ministry  under  the 
Orleanist  Due  de  Broglie,  and  put  republican  agitation,  in  the 
press  and  otherwise,  under  the  ban.  Finally,  they  worked  out 
an  ingenious  compromise  whereby  the  Bourbon  Count  of  Cham- 
bord  was  to  be  made  king  under  the  title  of  Henry  V,  and,  he 
having  no  heirs,  the  Orleanist  Count  of  Paris  was  to  be  recognized 
as  his  successor.  The  whole  project,  however,  failed,  for  the 
reason  that  the  Count  of  Chambord  refused  to  give  up  the  white 
flag,  which  for  centuries  had  been  the  standard  of  the  Bourbon 
house,  while  the  Orleanists  held  out  for  the  tricolor.1 

This  curious  turn  of  affairs  saved  the  life  of  the  republic  for 
the  time  being,  and  also  contributed  much  to  the  final  settlement. 
In  the  hope  that  they  might  eventually  gain  sufficient  strength 
to  place  their  candidate  on  the  throne  without  the  cooperation 
of  the  Legitimists,  the  Orleanists  joined  with  the  Bonapartists 
and  the  republicans,  November  20,  1873,  in  voting  to  fix  the 
term  of  President  MacMahon  at  seven  years.2  The  Orleanists 
assumed  that  if  within  that  period  an  opportunity  should  arise 
for  the  establishment  of  the  Count  of  Paris  upon  the  throne, 
the  President  would  clear  the  way  by  retiring.  The  opportunity, 
however,  never  came,  and  the  septennial  period  for  the  French 
presidency,  thus  established  by  monarchists  in  their  own  interest, 
passed  later  into  the  permanent  mechanism  of  a  republican  state.3 

The  Constitution  Adopted.  —  Meanwhile  the  law  of  September 
20  gave  fresh  impetus  to  the  work  of  constitution-making  by 
providing  that  a  committee  of  thirty  should  be  elected  at  once 
to  prepare  constitutional  laws  for  the  Assembly's  consideration. 
This  committee  entered  upon  its  task  with  commendable  zeal.4 
Due  consideration  was  given  to  the  pro  jet  presented  to  the  As- 
sembly by  Dufaure  on  the  eve  of  Thiers'  resignation,  although 
another  plan,  submitted  in  the  name  of  the  MacMahon  govern- 
ment by  the  Due  de  Broglie  (Dufaure's  successor  as  vice-president 
of  the  council)  was  made  the  main  basis  of  discussion.  Both 
members  and  outsiders  were  no  less  prolific  of  proposals  than  were 

1  Hanotaux,  Contemporary  France,  II,  Chaps,  iii-v ;  Marquis  de  Castallane, 
"Le  dernier  essai  de  restauration  monarchique  de  1873,"  in  Nouvelle  Rev.,  Nov. 
1,  1895. 

2  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  constitutions,  319;  Anderson,  Constitutions,  630; 
Hanotaux,  op.  cit.,  II,  Chap.  vi. 

3  There  was  much  difference  of  opinion  as  to  whether  the  septennate  was  personal 
or  constitutional.  Some  held  that  if  MacMahon  should  die  or  resign  before  the 
end  of  the  period  the  entire  arrangement  would  lapse.  Others  considered  that  in 
such  a  contingency  a  successor  would  have  to  be  elected  to  fill  out  the  term. 

4  The  unpublished  minutes  of  its  proceedings  are  preserved  in  the  archives  of 
the  Palais  Bourbon. 


380  GOVERNMEN  rs  OF   EUROPE 

Americans  when  the  constitutional  convention  was  sitting  al 
Philadelphia  in  [787.  Progress  In  committee  was  slow;  the 
Assembly  itself  held  back  from  pressing  matters  to  a  con<  lusion  , 
and  only  at  the  opening  of  [875  did  systemati<  consideration  ol 
the  projets  formulated  by  the  committee  begin.  By  that  time 
country  was  becoming  restless  under  the  agitation  of  dam 
betta  and  other  republican  leaders,  and  even  the  Legitimists  and 
Orleanists  feared  that  the  existing  unsettlement  would  lead  to  a 
Bonapartist  revival.  The  upshot  was  that  the  Orleanists,  con- 
vinced that  a  monarchy  of  their  own  making  was.  for  the  present, 
impossible,  and  preferring  a  republic  to  any  other  alternative 
that  had  been  suggested,  gave  their  support  in  sufficient  numbers 
to  the  program  of  the  republicans  to  make  it  at  last  possible  to 
work  out  for  the  nation  a  conservatively  republican  constitu- 
tional system.  Only  after  earnest  effort,  however,  and  by  the 
narrow  vote  of  353  to  352  on  the  first  division,  were  the  republi- 
cans able  to  carry  a  resolution,  introduced  January  30,  1875.  by 
the  deputy  Wallon,  making  definite  provision  for  the  election, 
term,  and  reeligibility  of  the  president  of  the  republic.1  In  a 
sense,  this  resolution  introduced  no  innovation,  but  merely  rati- 
fied a  preexisting  system.  It  did  not  state  a  principle,  or  even 
say  that  France  should  remain  a  republic.  But  in  affirming  cer- 
tain facts  about  the  presidential  office,  and  especially  in  prescrib- 
ing that  the  president  should  be  reeligible,  it  plainly  assumed  that 
the  republic  was  to  be  permanent. 

Thereafter  progress  was  rapid.  The  first  of  the  constitutional 
measures  to  be  brought  to  a  definitive  vote  was  the  Law  on  the 
Organization  of  the  Senate,  which  was  adopted  on  February  24 
by  a  vote  of  435  to  234^  The  second  was  the  Law  on  the  ( )r- 
ganization  of  the  Public  Powers,  which  was  carried  on  February 
25  by  a  vote  of  425  to  254^  The  gaps  which  remained  were  to 
some  extent  filled  up  by  a  Law  on  the  Relations  of  the  Public 
Powers,  based  on  a  projet  introduced  for  the  government  by  Du- 
faure  on  May  18,  and  adopted  July  16  by  a  vote  of  520  to  84-4 

1  "The  president  of  the  republic  is  elected  by  an  absolute  majority  of  votes  by 
the  Senate  and  Chamber  of  I  deputies  united  as  a  National  Assembly.  I  [e  is  i  hosen 
for  seven  years  and  he  is  reeligible."  This  became  Art.  2  of  the  Law  on  the  Organiza- 
tion of  the  Public  Powers. 

2  Annates  de  I' Assembled  nationale,  XXXVI,  616. 

•1  Ibid.,  XXXVI,  654.  The  vote  on  Art.  2  (the  Wallon  amendment),  separately 
taken  on  February  24,  was  413  to  248. 

Wbid.,  XL,  111  114.  "The  National  Assembly,  which  had,  not  without  some 
hesitation  and  perturbation,  declared  itself  a  1  onstituenl  body,  had  at  last  kept  the 
engagement  it  had  made  for  itself.  A  constitution  had  been  voted  ;  but  how  slowly. 
how  painfully,  how  incoherently."     Hanotaux,  Contemporary  France,  III,  283. 


THE   CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  THIRD   REPUBLIC    381 

These  three  measures  completed  the  constitution,  properly  con- 
sidered. Before  the  new  system  could  be  put  into  operation, 
however,  a  number  of  important  matters  had  to  be  settled, 
notably  the  manner  of  electing  the  deputies  and  various  aspects 
of  senatorial  elections  not  covered  in  the  law  of  February  24 ; 
and  this  occupied  several  more  months.1  The  senatorial  elec- 
tions were  finally  held  January  30,  1876,  the  elections  of  deputies 
February  20  and  March  5  ;2  and  on  March  8  the  National  As- 
sembly —  after  more  than  five  years  of  power  —  resigned  its 
functions  into  the  hands  of  the  new  parliament  and  passed  out  of 
existence.  Unlike  certain  of  the  country's  earlier  fundamental 
laws,  the  constitution  of  1875  was  not  submitted  to  a  plebiscite; 
nor  did  it  provide  for  any  direct  participation  of  the  people  in  its 
amendment.  That  it  met  with  the  approval  of  the  bulk  of  the 
nation  was,  however,  indicated  by  the  expressions  of  relief  with 
which  the  inauguration  of  a  regular,  constitutional  regime  was 
greeted,  and  by  the  unexpected  stability  which  this  regime  dis- 
played under  early  and  somewhat  severe  tests.3 

Form  and  Character  of  the  Constitution.  —  Framed  under  the 
peculiar  conditions  that  have  been  described,  and  the  handiwork 
of  a  body  which  as  a  whole  felt  no  enthusiasm  for  it,  the  French 
constitution  of  1875  is  unlike  any  instrument  of  government  with 
which  the  English-speaking  world  has  had  experience.  In  the 
first  place,  although  a  written  constitution,  it  consists  of  three 
separate  documents,  and  in  this  regard  is  to  be  likened  to  the 
Austrian  constitution  of  1867,  which  comprised  a  group  of  five 

1  A  law  providing  in  detail  for  the  election  of  senators  was  passed  on  August 
2  and  another  regulating  the  choice  of  deputies  on  November  30.  For  the  original 
texts,  see  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  constitutions,  325-335,  and  for  translations,  Dodd, 
Modern  Constitutions,  I,  295-308. 

2  These  elections  are  fully  described  in  Hanotaux,  op.  cit.,  III.  Chaps,  vi-vii. 

3  The  texts  of  the  three  constitutional  laws  are  printed  in  Duguit  et  Monnier, 
Les  constitutions,  319-325,  and  Duvergier,  Lois,  LXXV,  42-62,  250-255.  English 
versions  will  be  found  in  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I,  286-294,  and  Anderson, 
Constitutions,  633-639.  The  best  account  of  the  events  of  1875  *s  Hanotaux, 
Contemporary  France,  III,  Chaps,  i-iii.  Another  good  account  is  A.  Bertrand, 
Les  origines  de  la  troisiemc  republique,  1871-1876  (Paris,  1911).  Three  older  books 
on  the  rise  of  the  Third  Republic  are  F.  Littre,  L'elablissement  dc  la  troisieme  repub- 
lique (Paris,  1880) ;  L.  E.  Benoit,  Histoire  de  quinze  ans,  1870-188 5  (Paris,  1886) ; 
and  A.  Callet,  Les  origines  dc  la  troisiemc  republique  (Paris,  1889).  On  the  chief 
protagonist  of  republicanism  see  F.  T.  Mar/Jals,  Leon  Gambetta  (London,  1890) ; 
P.  B.  Ghensi,  Gambetta;  Life  and  Letters  (New  York,  1910) ;  J.  Reinach,  La  vie 
politique  dc  Leon  Gambetta,  suivi  dc  quelqucs  cssais  sur  Gambetta  (Paris,  191 7); 
and  P.  Deschanel,  Gambetta  (Paris,  1919).  There  is  an  interesting  interpretation 
in  Fisher,  Republican  Tradition  in  Europe,  Chap.  xL  Two  excellent  works  on  the 
constitutional  system  as  established  are  C.  Lefebre,  Etude  sur  les  lots  constitution neh 
de  1875  (Paris,  1882),  and  E.  Pierre,  Traitedc  droit  politique,  electoral,  et  parlemcnlairc 
(Paris,  1893). 


382  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

distinct  fundamental  laws,  rather  than  to  the  constitutions  of  the 
United  States  or  Canada  or  Australia,  or  France  herself  before 

1870. '  More  important  than  this  —  for,  practically,  the  three 
laws  may  be  considered  as  divisions  of  one  instrument  is  the 
fact  that  the-  constitution  covers  by  ao  means  all  of  the  ground 
that  a  written  frame  of  government  is  ordinarily  expected  to 
cover.  It  contains  no  general  hill  of  rights,  nor,  indeed,  any 
specific  guarantees  of  the  rights  of  the  citizen  as  against  the 
uowrnment.2  It  does  not  say  how  the  members  of  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies  shall  be  elected,  or  how  the  ministers  shall  he  ap- 
pointed. Strictly,  it  does  not  say  how  the  senators  shall  be 
elected  ;  for  an  amendment  of  August  14,  1884,  withdrew  the 
constitutional  character  from  those  articles  of  the  constitutional 
law  of  February  24,  1875,  which  covered  this  point.  Aside  from 
providing  that  the  Senate  may  he  constituted  a  high  court  of 
justice,  it  leaves  the  judiciary  untouched.  It  makes  no  provision 
for  annual  budgets.  In  striking  contrast  with  earlier  French 
constitutions,  which  were  long,  comprehensive,  logical,  and  sym- 
metrical, the  instrument  of  1875  is  brief,  partial, and  unsystematic, 
laying  down  only  certain  main  lines  of  organization  (and  not  all  of 
those  that  are  necessary)  and  leaving  the  rest  to  be  supplied  by 
custom  or  by  ordinary  legislation. 

The  constitution,  furthermore,  is  of  a  very  practical  nature. 
The  debates  in  the  Assembly  were  singularly  free  from  the  didactic 
theorizing  and  the  classical  allusion  so  characteristic  of  the  dis- 
cussions of  the  Convention  of  1792-95  and  of  the  Constituent 
Assembly  of  1848.  The  framers  did  not  start  with  abstract 
principles  and  seek  to  carry  them  out  to  all  of  their  logical  conse- 
quences. Rather,  the  instrument  was  hammered  out,  piece  by 
piece,  on  the  basis  of  experience,  and  with  a  view  to  meeting  the 
demand  of  an  impatient  country  for  a  regularized,  workable  sys- 
tem. 

It  follows  that  the  constitution  is  a  product  of  compromise. 
It  was  voted  by  monarchists  who  receded  in  part  from  their  own 

1  The  constitutions  of  the  First  and  Second  Empires  consisted  of  disjointed  texts, 
if  the  senatus-cottsultes  which  in  each  case  superimposed  an  Imperial  regime  upon 
a  republican  syst<  m  are  t"  be  regarded  as  true  constitutional  instruments. 

2  It   is   to   be  observed,   however,    that    many   authorities  agree   with    Proi 
Duguit  in  his  contention  that  although  the  individual  rights  enumerated  in  tin- 
Declaration  of   Rights  of   17S0  art-  not    mentioned   in   the  constitutional   I 
1875,  they  are  to  be  considered  as  lying  at  the  basis  of  the  French  governmental 
system  to-day.     Any  measure  enacted  by  the  national  parliament  in  contravention 
of  them,  says  Professor  Duguit,  would  be  unconstitutional.     They  are  not  mere 

is  or  theories,  but  rather  positive  laws,  binding  not  only  upon  the  legislative 
chambers  but  upon  the  constituent  National  Assembly.  I'ruitc  dc  droit  constitu- 
tionncl,  II,  13. 


THE   CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  THIRD   REPUBLIC    383 

position  in  despair  of  attaining  their  full  desires,  and  by  republi- 
cans who  were  prepared  to  make  large  concessions  in  order  to 
obtain  their  main  purpose  in  the  establishment  of  the  republic 
on  a  constitutional  basis.1  To  realize  this  prime  object,  the 
republicans,  indeed,  yielded  so  much  that  it  was  commonly  said 
that  the  new  constitution  was  a  monarchist  document,  and  was 
intended  by  most  of  its  nominal  supporters  to  pave  the  way  for 
the  revival  of  kingship.  Certainly  it  is  true  that  the  new  system 
presented  many  features,  e.g.,  the  dignities  and  functions  be- 
stowed upon  the  president,  which  hitherto  had  seemed  to  go  with 
limited  monarchy  —  features,  which,  at  all  events,  had  never  yet 
appeared  in  a  republican  regime.  Herein  lay,  however,  an  ele- 
ment of  strength :  the  constitution  was  not  only  practical  rather 
than  doctrinaire ;  it  was  linked  up  with  tradition,  and  hence,  if 
lacking  in  logic  of  content  and  arrangement,  was  based,  as  a 
French  writer  has  put  it,  on  "  the  larger  logic  of  history." 2 

Finally,  it  must  be  observed  that  what  has  thus  far  been  said 
applies  only  to  the  constitution  of  1875  in  the  narrow  sense, 
namely,  the  three  fundamental  laws.  The  actual,  working  con- 
stitution of  France  to-day  is  something  very  different.  In  the 
first  place,  the  original  laws  have  been  somewhat  altered  by  formal 
amendment.  But  more  important  is  the  fact  that  around  these 
laws  has  been  built  up  a  great  structure  of  statutory  regulations, 
of  which  many  differ  from  the  fundamental  laws  only  in  that  they 
have  been  adopted  and  can  be  altered  in  the  same  manner  as  any 
ordinary  law  —  in  short,  they  differ  in  legal  basis,  but  not  in 
general  nature  or  significance.  Such  is  the  law  of  August  2, 1875, 
on  the  election  of  senators,  that  of  November  30,  1875,  on  the 
election  of  deputies,  that  of  June  16,  1885,  substituting  scrutin 
de  liste  for  scrutin  d'arrondissement,  that  of  July  17,  1889,  pro- 
hibiting multiple  candidatures,  and  that  of  July  12,  191 9,  intro- 
ducing proportional  representation.3 

Amendment.  —  The  way  was  opened  for  the  final  adoption  of 
the  laws  of  1875  by  the  decision  to  make  amendment  easy  and 
to  permit  total,  as  well  as  partial,  revisions.  This  was  a  source 
of  much  comfort  to  the  monarchists ;  every  group  could  still 
cherish  the  hope  that  its  plan  would  finally  triumph.  The 
amending  process  is  defined  in  the  law  of  February  25.     As  is 

x  See  Laboulaye's  report,  in  Annates  de  I'Assemblee  nationale,  XXXVIII,  223. 

2  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit  constitutionnel  (4th  ed.),  534. 

3  See  Chap.  XXIII.  See  R.  Saleilles,  "Development  of  the  Present  Constitution 
of  France,"  in  Ann.  Amer.  Acad.  Polit.  and  Soc.  Sri.,  July,  1895.  An  admirable  analy- 
sis of  the  form  and  character  of  the  constitution  is  Hanotaux,  Contemporary  France, 
III,  Chap.  v. 


384  GOVERNMEN  I  -   "l     EUROP1 

if  ordinary  laws,  the  initiative  may  come  from  the  president 
of  the  republic  (or  the  ministers  acting  in  his  nam.  1  or  from  mem 
bers  of  either  branch  of  Parliamenl  ;  and  proposals  for  revision 
are  first  considered  by  the  two  bous<  3  eparately.  It'  both  houses 
decide,  by  an  absolute  majority  of  their  members,  thai  a  revision 
is  desirable,  the  members  meel  in  a  uni<  ameral  National  Assembly, 
in  which  amendments  are  carried  by  absolute  majority.1 

This  mode  of  amendment  presents  sevi  ral  interesting  features. 
In  the  first  place,  the  same  men  amend  the  constitution  who  make 
the  ordinary  laws.  After  the  preliminary  stage,  however,  they 
are  differently  organized  for  the  two  purposes.  When  convened 
in  the  Assembly,  the  chambers  lose  their  individuality  for  the 
time  being,  and  senators  and  deputies  become  members,  on  a  com- 
mon footing,  of  a  new, distinct  constituent  body  ;2  and  whereas  the 
work  of  legislation  is  carried  on  by  the  chambers  sitting  in  their 
respective  buildings  in  the  capital,  the  Assembly  meets  in  the 
hall  occupied  from  1876  to  1879  by  the  Chamber  of  Deputies 
in  the  old  royal  palace  at  Versailles.3  In  the  second  place,  the 
amending  process  is  very  simple  and  expeditious.  It  i>,  of  course, 
not  more  so  than  in  England,  where,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Parlia- 
ment at  Westminster  amends  the  partially  written,  partially  un- 
written, constitution  in  precisely  the  same  manner  in  which  it 
enacts  ordinary  laws.  But,  as  compared  with  the  method  in  the 
United  States,  where  amendments,  after  being  proposed  by  Con- 
gress or  by  a  special  convention,  have  to  be  ratified  by  the  legis- 
latures (or  by  conventions)  in  three  fourths  of  the  states,  it  is 
notably  easy  and  speedy.  No  form  of  ratification  is  required. 
The  method  was  adopted  with  a  view  to  avoiding  delays  and  dead- 
locks, such  as  have  frequently  risen  in  Belgium,  where  amend- 
ments are  considered  and  acted  on  at  all  stages  by  the  parlia- 
mentary chambers  sitting  separately.1  Either  house,  it  is  true, 
tan  block  a  proposed  amendment  by  refusing  to  make  the  pre- 
liminary declaration  that  a  revision  is  necessary  —  a  power  which 
was  designed  primarily  to  protect  the  Senate,  whose  members  are 
overwhelmed  numerically  by  the  deputies  in  the  National  As- 

1  No  special  officers  arc  elected  for  the  direction  of  the  Assembly's  proceedings. 
The  president,  vice-presidents,  and  secretaries  of  the  Senate  sen  e  a-  the  "bureau." 
On  the  1  irlj  doubt  as  to  whether  a  majority  <>f  all  membei  •  majority  of 
those  voting  is  required  see  Esmein,  Elements  dc  droit  constittttionnel  14th  ed.), 
905-906.  The  practice  is  to  require  a  majority  of  the  entire  membership  of  the 
two  chambei  I  ere  being  now  300  senators  and  626  deputies,  464  votes  in  the 
National  Assembly  would  be  necessary  for  the  adoption  of  an  amendment. 

2  Duguit,  Manuel  dc  droit  constitutionnel,  (2d  ed.),  457. 

3  See  p.  388. 

•'See  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,!,  146. 


THE   CONSTITUTION   OF  THE  THIRD   REPUBLIC    385 

sembly,  against  amendments  aimed  specifically  at  it.  But,  once 
the  initial  declaration  has  been  made,  the  decision  rests  with  a 
single  body,  and  therefore  is  likely  to  be  quickly  reached.  The 
system  was  thus  wisely  devised  to  make  it  somewhat  difficult  to 
set  the  amending  machinery  going,  but  easy  to  obtain  results 
after  it  is  started. 

The  only  restriction  that  has  been  laid  upon  the  amending 
powers  of  the  National  Assembly  is  contained  in  an  amendment 
of  August  14,  1884,  which  forbids  that  the  republican  form  of 
government  shall  be  made  the  subject  of  a  proposed  revision.1 
Hence  the  chambers  are  practically  omnipotent ;  even  the  re- 
striction just  mentioned  must  be  regarded  as  a  gentleman's  agree- 
ment rather  than  as  an  insurmountable  restraint ;  for  the  same 
authority  that  decreed  it  might  rescind  it,  and  any  action  of  the 
National  Assembly  is  ipso  facto  legal  and  enforceable.  In  France, 
therefore,  no  less  than  in  England,  the  constitution  is  at  the  mercy 
of  the  government,  for  in  both  countries  the  people  have  tacitly 
surrendered  to  the  government  the  exercise  of  constituent  powers. 
In  France,  a  certain  formal,  procedural  distinction  between  con- 
stituent and  legislative  powers  is  maintained  ;  and  this  undoubt- 
edly acts  as  a  restraint.  But  in  principle  the  situation  is  the  same 
as  in  England,  where  no  procedural  distinction  exists  ;  and  there 
is  not  even  the  half-formed  tradition  which  seems  to  be  growing 
up  in  England  that  no  great  constitutional  change  shall  be  made 
until  the  people  shall  have  had  an  opportunity  to  express  them- 
selves upon  it  at  a  national  election.2 

In  point  of  fact,  the  amending  power  has  been  used  sparingly. 
Great  and  necessary  additions  to,  or  other  changes  in,  the  govern- 
mental system  have  been  made  freely  and  easily,  both  by  ordinary 
laws  and  by  laws  which,  while  not  strictly  "  constitutional," 
are  still  somewhat  more  fundamental  than  simple  statutes  (the 
electoral  laws  afford  illustrations),  and  hence  are  termed  "  or- 
ganic "  acts.  But  there  have  been  no  formal  constitutional 
amendments  except  (1)  that  of  June  21,  1879,  repealing  the  article 
of  the  law  of  February  25,  1875,  which  prescribed  that  the  seat 
of  the  executive  power  and  of  the  two  chambers  should  be  at 

1  "The  minister,  Jules  Ferry,  who  took  the  initiative  of  this  measure,  did  not, 
of  course,  believe  that  a  word  inserted  in  a  law  could  make  the  constitution  eternal. 
But  he  wished  to  put  an  end  to  the  attacks,  then  incessantly  renewed,  of  the  enemies 
of  the  Republic.  The  practical  bearing  of  this  proposition  is  easily  grasped.  Any 
revision  which  would  have  for  its  object  the  substitution  of  a  monarchical  system 
for  the  Republic  would  be  illegal  and  revolutionary.  The  head  of  the  state  would 
have  the  right,  as  it  would  be  his  duty,  to  refuse  to  promulgate  such  a  law  if  voted." 
Poincare,  How  France  is  Governed,  163. 

2  Willoughby,  Government  of  Modern  States,  123-128. 

2C 


386  GOVERNMENTS  OB    El  ROPE 

lilies,1  and  2)  a  series  of  four  adopted  August  i.p  1884, 
as  follows:  (a)  reducing  from  three  to  two  months  the  maximum 
interval  between  a  dissolution  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  by 
the  president  of  the  republic  and  the  election  of  the  new  (ham 
her,  and  requiring  that  the  latter  shall  meet  within  ten  days 
after  tin-  election,  ( /> i  forbidding  the  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment to  be  made  the  subject  of  a  proposal  for  revision,  and  mak- 
ing members  of  families  that  have  reigned  in  France  ineligible  to 
the  presidency,  (c)  withdrawing  its  constitutional  chara<  ter  from 
that  part  (Arts.  1-7)  of  the  law  of  February  24,  1875,  dealing 
with  the  election  of  senators,  and  (d)  rescinding  a  paragraph  of 
the  law  of  July  16,  1875,  which  required  that  on  the  first  Sunday 
after  the  opening  of  a  parliamentary  session  divine  aid  in  behalf 
of  the  chambers  should  be  invoked  in  all  churches  and  temples.'- 

1  A  statute  of  July  22,  1879,  transferred  the  seat  of  government  to  Paris.  Duguit 
ct  Monnier.  f.cs  constitutions,  336-337. 

2  Texts  in  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  constitutions,  3s''.  3385  ami  Anderson,  Constitu- 
tions, 639-640.  For  discussion  see  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit  constitutional  (4U1 
ed.),  901-918,  and  Duguit,  Manuel  de  droit  constitutional  (2d  ed.),  452-463.  The 
amendment  of  constitutions  in  general  is  considered  in  Willoughby,  Government  of 
Modern  States,  Chap,  vii,  and  more  fully,  on  historical  lines,  in  ('.  Borgeaud,  Ela- 
blissement  el  revision  des  constitutions  en  Amertque  eten  Europe  (Paris,  1892),  trans, 
by  C.  D.  Ha/.en  under  the  title  Adoption  and  Amendment  of  Constitutions  in  Europe. 
and  America  (New  York,  1895). 


CHAPTER   XXII 

THE   PRESIDENT   AND   THE   MINISTERS 

Form  of  the  Executive.  —  The  most  fundamental  function  of 
government  is  the  execution  of  law,  and  no  governmental  system 
is  worthy  of  the  name  that  does  not  make  ample  provision  for  the 
exercise  of  executive  power  by  some  constituted  authority.  In 
France,  as  in  the  United  States,  this  function  has  been  be- 
stowed upon  an  elected  president.  The  French  presidency,  as 
has  been  explained,  had  its  origin  in  the  unsettled  period  following 
the  Prussian  war,  when  it  was  widely  believed  that  monarchy, 
under  one  dynasty  or  another,  would  eventually  be  reestablished. 
The  title  was  created  in  1871.  But  the  office  as  it  exists  to-day 
hardly  antedates  the  election  of  Marshal  MacMahon  in  1873  ; 
and  it  still  bears  evidence  of  the  purpose  of  the  majority  of  its 
creators  to  keep  the  French  people  accustomed  to  visible  per- 
sonal supremacy,  and  so  to  make  easier  the  future  transition  to 
a  monarchical  system. 

It  follows  from  what  has  been  said  that  the  framers  of  the  con- 
stitution of  1875  did  not  squarely  and  disinterestedly  face  the 
question  of  what  form  of  executive  to  establish.  When  the  Na- 
tional Assembly  came  together  at  Bordeaux,  Thiers'  experience 
and  capacity  towered  so  far  above  the  qualifications  of  any  other 
member  that  his  election  as  "  chief  of  the  executive  power  " 
was  almost  automatic ;  the  body  was  so  nearly  unanimous  upon 
it  that  a  division  was  not  called  for.  This  act  was  sufficient  to 
create  a  presumption  in  favor  of  a  single  executive,  elected  by  an 
assembly  representing  the  people  at  large  ;  and  this  presumption, 
coupled  with  the  ulterior  designs  of  the  monarchists,  was  adequate 
to  carry  the  executive  along  unchanged  in  its  fundamentals  until 
it  passed  into  the  constitution  of  1875.  There  was  little  weigh- 
ing of  either  French  precedent  or  of  foreign  experience.  The 
constitution  of  the  First  Republic,  and  that  of  Switzerland, 
might  have  suggested  a  collegial,  or  plural,  form  of  executive ; 
that  of  the  Second  Republic  might  have  influenced  a  decision  in 
favor  of  direct  popular  election.  But  by  the  time  when  the  As- 
sembly was  prepared  to  confess  to  itself  that  it  was  framing  a 

387 


GOVERNMEN  1>  OF    El  ROPE 

republican  constitution  which  mighl  become  permanent,  the 
executive,  in  the  form  firsl  hastily  set  up,  had  become  sufficiently 
intrenched  to  be  accepted  as  a  fixed  feature  of  the  new  system. 
The  country  lost  nothing  thereby;  its  experience  with  the  Direc- 
tory of  [795  oo  was  not  encouraging;  and,  notwithstanding 
the  very  fair  success  of  the  Swiss  plan,  political  scientists  re- 
gard it  as  generally  desirable  that  executive  powers  be  legally 
or  nominally  vested  in  a  single  person.1 

The  President :  Election.-  There  are  three  principal  ways 
in  which  the  chief  executive  of  a  republic  can  be  chosen  :  by  direct 
popular  vote,  by  the  legislature,  and  by  an  electoral  college 
specially  constituted  for  the  purpose.  Mexico  and  other  Latin- 
American  slates  afford  illustration  of  the  first  method,  Switzer- 
land of  the  second,  the  United  States  of  the  third.  Under  the 
First  Republic,  France  tried  a  modified  form  of  the  second  plan,2 
and  under  the  Second  Republic  she  tried  direct  popular  election. 
Her  experience  with  the  latter  was  wholly  unsatisfactory;  Louis 
Napoleon  readily  used  it,  first  to  secure  his  election  as  presi- 
dent, and  later  to  obtain  an  indorsement  of  the  coup  d'etat  by 
which  he  made  himself  emperor.  Accordingly,  under  the  Third 
Republic  the  nation  returned  to  the  plan  of  election  by  the  legis- 
lature, the  decision  being  aided,  of  course,  by  the  fact  that  when 
the  constitutional  laws  were  finally  framed  the  National  As- 
sembly had  already  elected  two  presidents.  The  constitutional 
law  of  February  25,  1875,  provides  that  the  president  shall  be 
chosen,  for  a  term  of  seven  years,  "  by  an  absolute  majority  of 
votes  of  the  Senate  and  Chamber  of  Deputies  united  in  National 
Assembly";3  and  the  law  of  July  16,  1875,  supplies  the  necessary 
procedural  details. 

One  month,  at  least,  before  the  expiration  of  his  term  the  presi- 
dent is  required  to  convoke  the  members  of  the  two  chambers 
in  a  unicameral  National  Assembly  (which  sits  at  Versailles,  as 
for  amending  the  constitution)  to  choose  his  successor.  In  de- 
fault of  such  a  summons,  the  meeting  takes  place  on  call  of  the 
president  of  the  Senate  two  weeks  before  the  expiration;  and  in 
the  event  of  the  death  or  resignation  of  the  president,  the  As- 
sembly is  required  to  convene  immediately  without  summons.4 
There  is  no  vice-president,  nor  any  law  of  succession,  so  that 

1  Esmcin,  Elements  de  droit  constUutionnel  (4th  ed.),  536-539. 

2  See  p.  367. 

3  Art.  2.     Dodd,  Modim  Constitutions,  I.  286. 

4  The  president  presents  his  resignation  in  letters  addressed  to  the  presidents  of 
the  parliamentary  chambers.  On  the  resignation  of  President  (Jrevy  in  1887  see 
Bodley,  Frana .  I 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE   MINISTERS  389 

whenever  the  presidential  office  falls  vacant  there  must  be  an 
election ;  and,  at  whatever  time  and  under  whatever  circumstance 
begun,  the  term  of  the  newly  elected  president  is  the  full  seven 
years.  As  upon  the  occasion  of  the  assassination  of  M.  Sadi- 
Carnot  in  1894,  a  vacancy  may  arise  unexpectedly,  entailing  a 
hurried  election.  Even  under  normal  conditions,  however,  a 
presidential  election  in  France  involves  no  period  of  campaign- 
ing such  as  we  are  familiar  with  in  the  United  States.  The  candi- 
dates, or  at  all  events  their  friends,  are  likely  to  try  to  line  up 
the  parliamentary  members  in  their  behalf ;  they  may  even  make 
speeches  and  in  other  ways  appeal  to  popular  sentiment.  ^  But 
the  situation  is  very  different  from  that  which  would  exist  if 
the  choice  lay  with  the  people  directly. 

So  far  as  the  formalities  go,  an  election  is  likely  to  be  carried 
through  all  stages  within  the  space  of  forty-eight  hours.  As 
described  by  a  recent  president,  M.  Poincare,  the  procedure  is 
as  follows :  "  When  the  Assembly  is  convoked  for  a  presidential 
election  the  members  vote  without  discussion.1  The  urn  is  then 
placed  in  the  tribune  (the  platform  from  which  speakers  would 
address  the  body  if  debate  took  place),  and  as  an  usher  with  a 
silver  chain  calls  their  names  in  a  sonorous  voice  the  members 
of  the  Assembly  pass  in  a  file  in  order  to  deposit  their  ballot- 
papers.  .  .  .  The  procession  of  voters  lasts  a  long  time  ;  there 
are  nearly  nine  hundred  votes  to  be  cast.2  When  the  vote  is 
completed  the  scrutators,  drawn  by  lot  from  among  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Assembly,  count  the  votes  in  an  adjoining  hall.  If  no 
candidate  has  obtained  an  absolute  majority  of  votes,  the  presi- 
dent3 announces  a  second  ballot,  and  so  on,  if  needful,  until  there 
is  some  result.  The  candidate  elected  is  proclaimed  by  the 
president  of  the  Assembly.  There  are  applause,  and  cries  of 
Vive  la  Republique!  and  the  Assembly  dissolves.  The  new  presi- 
dent, accompanied  by  the  ministers,  reenters  Paris  and  installs 
himself  in  the  Palais  de  l'Elysee." 4  The  inauguration  takes  place, 
of  course,  on  the  day  on  which  the  former  president's  term  expires. 
The  incoming  executive  is  escorted  to  the  Elysee  by  the  prime 
minister  and  a  regiment  of  cuirassiers,  the  retiring  president  makes 

1  This  is  because  the  National  Assembly  is  sitting  as  an  electoral  college,  and  the 
business  of  an  electoral  college  is  to  vote,  not  to  debate. 

2  The  number  is  now  (in  1920)  926. 

3  The  president  of  the  Senate  occupies  the  chair. 

4  Poincare,  How  France  is  Governed,  168-169.  Much  information  on  presidential 
elections  is  presented  in  Bodley,  France,  I,  271-332,  and  the  subject  is  discussed 
systematically  in  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit  constitutionnel  (4th  ed.),  544-558.  See 
also  A.  Trido'n,  "France's  Way  of  Choosing  a  President,"  in  Amer.  Rev.  of  Revs., 
Dec,  1912. 


390  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

a  formal  speech  and  his  successor  a  reply,  and  afterwards  the  two 
go  together  to  the  H6tel  de  Ville,  where  they  axe  received  by  rep- 
resentatives  of  the  municipality  and  of  the  department  of  the 
Seine.  The  people  line  the  streets  and  cheer;  but  the  formal 
ceremony  is  attended  only  by  the  ministers  and  by  committees 
hiding  the  presidents)  of  the  two  chambers. 

The  President :  Term,  Qualifications,  and  Immunities.  — 
The  president's  term  is  seven  years.  Under  the  Second  Republic 
the  term  was  four  years,  and  the  projet  submitted  to  the  National 
mbly  by  Dufaure  in  [873  provided  for  a  term  of  five  years. 
But  the  longer  period  was  finally  adopted,  mainly  because,  as 
has  been  explained,  the  majority  conceived  of  the  septennate  a.-  a 
bridge  leading  across  the  republican  morass  which  separated  the 
fallen  Empire  from  a  future  Bourbon  or  Orleanist  monarchy. 
It  is  of  interest  to  recall  that  a  seven-year  term  for  the  presi- 
dent  was  provided  for  in  the  first  draft  of  the  constitution  of  1  he- 
United  States,  and  that  the  period  was  reduced  to  four  years 
only  after  election  by  Congress  was  abandoned  in  favor  of  choice 
by  electors  specially  chosen  for  the  purpose.1 

In  the  United  States,  presidential  elections  take  place  at  fixed 
intervals,  and  if  the  office  falls  vacant  during  the  quadrennial 
period  the  vice-president  succeeds,  or  in  lieu  of  the  vice-presi- 
dent, heads  of  departments  in  order  fixed  by  law.  In  France,  on 
the  contrary,  every  president  is  directly  elected  to  the  office,  and 
is  entitled  to  a  full  term  from  the  date  of  his  accession.  The 
constitution  of  the  Second  Republic,  provided,  indeed,  for  a  vice- 
president,  who  was  appointed  by  the  National  Assembly  from 
three  candidates  presented  by  the  president.  But  the  vice- 
president  was  merely  to  act  for  the  president  in  case  of  the  latters 
disability,  and  to  discharge  the  duties  of  the  office  temporarily 
when  it  fell  vacant  by  death  or  resignation.  He  could  not  def- 
initely succeed  to  the  position  unless  he  was  elected  thereto  by 
Assembly;2  and  under  the  Third  Republic  there  is  no  pro- 
vision for  a  vice-president  at  all.  In  the  American  system  the 
vice-presidency  is  a  practical  necessity,  although  the  great  dis- 
advantage is  entailed  that  it  may  be  tin-  means  of  bringing  into 
the  chief  executive's  chair  a  man  who  has  not  really  been  chosen 
with  a  view  to  his  qualifications  for  it.  Under  the  French  system 
the  office  is  not  needed.  In  case  <>f  the  president's  n  signation 
or  death,  the  council  of  ministers  at  1-  ;i-  head  of  the  state  until 

1  M.  Farrand  [ed.],  The  Rrrmds  of  the  Federal  Convention  (New  Haven,  1911),  III, 
216-217. 

2  Art.  70.     Anderson,  Constitutions,  531-532. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  MINISTERS  391 

a  successor  is  chosen.  There  is  no  clear  provision  for  discharging 
the  duties  of  the  office  in  case  the  president  is  merely  incapaci- 
tated. But  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  ministerial  council 
would  act  in  this  contingency  also.  As  will  appear,  this  body 
is  at  all  times  the  actual,  working  executive,  and  its  temporary 
assumption  of  the  nominal  headship  of  the  state  would  produce 
no  serious  disturbance  of  the  balance. 

The  constitution  of  the  United  States  stipulates  certain  qual- 
ifications for  the  president,  and  the  first  two  republican  consti- 
tutions of  France  had  definite  provisions  of  this  character.  The 
constitution  of  the  Third  Republic  is  mute  on  the  subject,  ex- 
cept that  an  amendment  of  1884  debars  members  of  families 
that  have  reigned  in  France.  The  framers  of  this  instrument 
felt  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  any  one  to  be  elected  by  the 
National  Assembly  who  was  not  a  male  French  citizen,  twenty- 
one  years  of  age  or  above,  and  in  possession  of  full  civil  and  politi- 
cal rights ;  and,  having  little  faith  in  the  efficacy  of  artificial 
restrictions  and  regulations,  they  preferred  to  let  the  matter  go 
unmentioned.  In  point  of  fact,  the  Assembly  can  be  counted 
on  to  elect  a  man  who  has  long  been  a  member,  and  has  perhaps 
served  as  president  of  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  houses  of  Parlia- 
ment, who  has  had  experience  in  committee  work  and,  as  a  rule, 
as  a  cabinet  officer,  and  who,  above  all,  is  not  of  too  aggressive 
or  domineering  temperament. 

On  one  point,  however,  the  makers  of  the  French  constitution 
were  more  specific  than  the  framers  of  the  American  instrument, 
namely,  the  president's  reeligibility.  The  president  is  reeligible, 
immediately  and  indefinitely.  The  clause  of  the  constitution  of 
1848  which  made  the  president  reeligible  only  after  an  interval 
of  four  years  had  much  to  do  with  producing  the  coup  d'etat  of 
1852,  and  the  principle  has  never  been  revived.  The  relatively 
long  term,  however,  sets  up  a  certain  presumption  against  reelec- 
tion. Only  one  president,  M.  Grevy,  has  been  elected  a  second 
time;  and  circumstances  compelled  him  to  resign  (December  1, 
1887)  before  the  close  of  the  second  year  of  his  second  term.1 

A  subject  that  caused  the  framers  of  the  constitution  some 
trouble  was  the  president's  responsibility.     Up  to  1875,  it  was 

1  Bodley,  France,  I,  291-298.  Counting  Thiers,  the  republic  has  thus  far  had 
ten  presidents :  Adolphe  Thiers,  1871-73;  Marshal  MacMahon,  1873-79;  Jules 
Grevy,  1879-87  ;  F.  Sadi-Carnot,  1887-94;  Casimir-Perier,  June,  1894,  to  January, 
1895;  Felix  Faure,  1895-99;  Emile  Loubet,  1899-1906;  Armand  Fallieres,  1906- 
13;  Raymond  Poincare,  1913-20;  and  Paul  Deschanel,  1920  to  the  present  day. 
For  the  electoral  vote  in  each  case  see  H.  Leyret,  Le  president  de  la  republique 
(Paris,  1913),  233-243. 


392  GOVERNMEN  rs  01     El  R0P1 

commonly  assumed  that  in  a  republic  having  a  cabinel  form  oi 
government  the  president,  as  well  a  the  tninisters,  musl  be  re 
sponsible  to  the  Legislature.  The  constitution  of  [848  declared 
the  president  responsible,  along  with  the  ministers  and  ;ill  other 
persons  intrusted  with  public  powers;1  and  de  Tocqueville,  de 
Broglie,  and  other  publicists  steadily  urged  that   presidential 

insibility  is  of  the  very  essence  of  republicanism.  Experi- 
ence in  the  years  [871  75  showed,  however,  the  difficulty  in- 
deed, the  impossibility  of  attaching  general  and  political  re- 
sponsibility to  a  president  with  a  fixed  term,  even  though  Ik-  was 
elected  by  the  legislature.  Furthermore,  it  was  difficult  to 
maintain  presidential  responsibility  and  ministerial  responsibility 
side  by  side;  in  the  nature  of  things,  one  tended  to  exclude  the 
other.  The  consequence  was,  therefore,  that  political  responsi- 
bility for  the  president  was  given  up.  The  essential  object,  which 
was.  of  course.  to  hring  the  acts  and  policies  of  the  executive 
under  the  ultimate  control  of  the  legislature,  was  attained, 
rather,  by  stipulating  in  the  constitution,  first,  that  every  act 
of  the  president  should  be  countersigned  by  a  minister,  and  sec- 
ond, that  the  ministers  should  be  collectively  sponsible  to  the 
chambers  for  the  general  policy  of  the  government,  and  individu- 
ally for  their  personal  acts.-  This  relieves  the  president  of  all 
political  responsibility  to  the  chambers. 

There  was  no  thought,  however,  of  putting  the  titulary  head 
of  the  state  in  the  position  of  absolute  immunity  enjoyed  by  mon- 
arches, even  by  the  king  of  England.  Hence  the  constitution 
further  prescribes  that  the  president  shall  be  responsible  in  case 
of  high  treason,  and  that  he  may  be  impeached  by  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies  and  tried  by  the  Senate.  In  other  words,  his  re- 
sponsibility  is  not  political,   but  penal.      His  person   and   his 

;ty  are  protected  by  statute  against  insult,  and,  like  the 
president  of  the  United  States,  he  is  exempt  during  his  term  of 
office  from  the  processes  of  the  ordinary  courts.  But,  also  like 
his  American  compeer,  he  may  be  brought  to  trial  before  the 
Senate  on  articles  of  impeachment  presented  by  the  lower 
legislative  chamber.  The  president  of  the  United  States  can 
be  impeached  for  "  treason,  bribery,  or  other  high  crimes  and 
misdemeanors";3  the  French  president  can  be  impeached  for 
high  treason  only.  On  the  other  hand,  whereas  the  penalty 
tnat  can  be  imposed  upon  the  American  president  by  the  Senate 

1  Art.  68.     Anderson,  Constitutions,  531. 

'•'  Law  of  February  25,  1875,  Arts.  3,  6.     Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I,  287. 

3  Federal  Constitution,  Art.  II,  Sec.  4. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE   MINISTERS  393 

is  confined  to  removal  from  office  and  disqualification  to  hold 
office,  the  French  constitution  fixes  no  limit  to  the  penalty  thai 
can  be  inflicted  upon  a  president  convicted  of  treason.  No 
French  president  has  been  impeached  ;  and  inasmuch  as  the  penal 
laws  nowhere  define  "  high  treason,"  the  actual  intent  and  opera- 
tion of  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  on  this  point  are  the  sub- 
ject of  considerable  differences  of  opinion  among  French  writers.1 

Powers  of  the  President.  —  On  taking  up  the  powers  and  func- 
tions of  the  president,  one  is  immediately  struck  by  the  widely 
differing  estimates  which  writers  have  placed  upon  them.  On 
the  one  hand,  we  find  the  due  de  Broglie  characterizing  the 
president  as  "  a  chief  invested  with  all  the  attributes  of  royalty : 
initiative,  veto,  and  execution  of  the  laws ;  direction  of  the  ad- 
ministration in  all  of  its  branches ;  appointment  of  all  employees 
of  the  government ;  command  of  the  forces  on  land  and  sea  — 
a  royal  chief,  without  the  royal  name  and  the  royal  permanence." 2 
On  the  other  hand,  we  read  in  Sir  Henry  Maine :  "  There  is  no 
living  functionary  who  occupies  a  more  pitiable  position  than  a 
French  president.  The  old  kings  of  France  reigned  and  governed . 
The  constitutional  king,  according  to  M.  Thiers,  reigns,  but  does 
not  govern.  The  president  of  the  United  States  governs,  but 
he  does  not  reign.  It  has  been  reserved  for  the  president  of  the 
French  republic  neither  to  reign  nor  yet  to  govern."3  The  dis- 
crepancy is  quite  as  great  as  that  which  appears  in  various 
classic  statements  of  the  powers  of  the  king  of  England  ;  and  the 
reason  is  the  same.  In  both  cases  everything  depends  on  whether 
one  is  thinking  of  the  powers  which  in  law  belong  to  the  titulary 
head  of  the  state  or  of  those  which  that  dignitary  independently 
and  personally  exercises.  On  the  one  side  of  the  Channel  as  on 
the  other,  the  powers  that  nominally  belong  to  the  titulary  head 
are  exercised  mainly  by  ministers  over  whom  he  has  little  or  no 
effective  control. 

Waiving  for  the  time  being  the  question  of  how  the  French 
president's  powers  are  actually  exercised,  the  powers  themselves 
can  be  stated  in  brief  and  simple  terms.  In  the  first  place,  the 
constitution  gives  the  president  full  executive  authority.  He 
promulgates  the  laws  and  controls  the  administrative  machinery 

1  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit  conslilulionnel  (4th  ed.),  657-663  ;  Leyret,  Le  presi- 
dent de  la  republique,  31-44.  On  the  president's  immunity  from  control  by  the 
courts  in  the  United  States  see  W.  B.  Munro,  Government  of  the  United  States  (New 
York,  iqiq),  124-125.  On  impeachment  in  the  United  States  see  W.  W.  Willough- 
by,  Constitutional  Law  in  the  United  States  (New  York,  1910),  II,  1121-1124. 

2  Vues  sur  le  gouvemement  de  la  France,  227. 

3  Popular  Government,  250. 


394  <'l»\  ERNMEN  is  OF   EUROPE 

through  which  they  arc-  enforced.  By  virtue  of  the  pouvoir 
reglementaire,  he  issues  decrets,  or  ordinances,  which,  although  not 
laws,  supplement  and  apply  the  laws  on  a  wide  variety  of  sub- 
jects. These  dicrets  arc  frequently,  in  effect,  administrative 
rules,  such  as  art'  issued  by  the  presidenl  of  the  United  States 
or  under  his  name  and  authority.  They  bear  a  i  lose  resemblance, 
too,  to  English  orders  in  council.1  The  president  appoints  to 
all  civil  and  military  offices  in  the  central  government  and  to 
many  in  the  local  governments;  on  account  of  the  centralized 
character  of  the  political  system,  his  appointments  are  relatively 
more  numerous  than  those  of  the  presidenl  of  the  United  States, 
and  they  do  not  require  confirmation  by  the  Senate,  or  by  any 
other  body.  He  may  even,  by  decree,  create  new  offices,  and, 
except  in  a  few  cases,  his  power  of  removal  is  unlimited.  Parlia- 
ment, however,  may  fix  the  qualifications  to  be  required  of  ap- 
pointees to  particular  positions  or  classes  of  positions,  and  may 
even  vest  the  appointing  power  for  certain  purposes  in  authorit  ies 
other  than  the  president.2  The  president  sends  and  receives 
all  ministers,  ambassadors,  envoys,  and  consuls;  and  he  nego- 
tiates and  approves  treaties.  Treaties  of  peace  and  commerce, 
treaties  which  involve  'the  finances  of  the  Mate,  and  those  which 
affect  the  personal  status  and  the  rights  of  property  of  Trench 
persons  abroad  require  ratification  by  the  two  chambers  (not 
simply  the  Senate,  as  in  the  United  States) ;  and,  with  or  without 
a  treaty,  no  cession,  exchange,  or  addition  of  territory  can  be 
made  without  parliamentary  sanction.  The  exceptions  are  so 
inclusive  that  not  many  foreign  agreements  can  be  made  effective 
by  action  of  the  executive  alone.  However,  extradition  treaties, 
military  conventions,  treaties  of  alliance,  and  political  treaties 
of  all  kinds  fall  in  this  category  so  long  as  they  do  not  require 
appropriations    from    the    national    treasury.3    The    president, 

1  See  p.  71.  L.  Duguit,  Law  in  the  Modern  State  (New  York,  iqio),  70-S3; 
Esmein,  Elements  de  droit  constitutionnel  (4th  ed.),  574-583;  H.  Berthelemy,  "Le 
pouvoir  reglementaire  du  president,''  in  Rev.  Polit.  ei  Pari.,  Jan.-Feb.,  (898;  L. 
Rolland,  "Le  pouvoir  reglementaire  du  president  de  la  repuhlique  en  temps  de 
guerre,"  in  Rev.  Droit  Pub.  et  Sri.  Polit..  Oct.-Dec,  1918. 

2  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit  constitutionnel  (4th  ed.),  584-554.     Compare  the 

1  ongress  to  vest  the  appointment  of  inferior  officers  in  "the 
presidi  in  tin    courts  of  law,  or  in  the  heads  of  departments."     U.S. 

Constitution,  Art.  II,  Sec.  2. 

:i  Esmein, op.cit., 631;  Leyret,  LeprSsidentdelar6pubKqtte,Cha.p.  vi;  I).  P.Myers, 
Laturesand  Foreign  Relations,"  in  Ann r.  Polit.  Sri.  Rev.,  Nov.,  1917 ;  "Treat- 
ment of  International  Questions  by  Parliaments  in  European  Countries,  tin-  United 
States,  and  Japan,"  in  British  Pari.  Papers,  Misc.,  No.  5  (1912);  P.  Barisien,  Le 
parlement  et  Its  traites  (Paris,  1913).  The  chambers  accept  or  reject  a  treaty  in 
toto,  and  never  seek  to  p  \  ise  its  terms. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND   THE   MINISTERS  395' 

furthermore,  is  commander-in-chief  of  the  armed  forces  of  the 
nation,  military  and  naval.  He  cannot  declare  war  without  the 
consent  of  the  chambers ;  but  through  his  management  of  foreign 
affairs  he  may  at  any  time  create  a  situation  making  war  inevi- 
table, very  much  as  may  the  president  of  the  United  States. 
Finally,  the  president  has  the  powers  of  pardon  and  reprieve, 
although  amnesty  can  be  granted  only  by  parliamentary  act.1 

In  relation  to  legislation,  the  president's  powers  are  likewise 
impressive.  He  convokes  the  two  houses  of  Parliament  in  both 
regular  and  extraordinary  sessions  (subject  to  the  constitutional 
requirement  that  they  shall  assemble  each  year  in  January 
whether  convoked  by  the  president  or  not)  and  adjourns  them 
for  any  period  not  exceeding  one  month ;  and,  with  the  consent 
of  the  Senate,  he  can  dissolve  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  before 
the  expiration  of  its  term,  thereby  bringing  on  a  national  election.2 
He  cannot  veto  measures  in  the  same  fashion  as  the  president  of 
the  United  States,  but  he  can  refuse  to  promulgate  them  until  they 
have  been  reconsidered  by  the  chambers.  If  upon  reconsidera- 
tion a  bill  is  again  passed,  even  by  bare  majorities,  the  president 
must  proclaim  it  and  enforce  it.  He  can  communicate  with 
the  chambers  by  messages,  which  are  read  from  the  tribune  by 
a  minister ;  and,  on  the  analogy  of  the  constitution  of  1848,  and 
in  pursuance  of  practice  during  the  formative  period  1871-75,  the 
constitution  authorizes  him  to  initiate  laws  concurrently  with  the 
members  of  the  two  houses.  Formally,  the  president  of  the 
United  States  has  no  such  power ;  but  through  channels  hardly 
less  direct  than  those  through  which  the  French  president  pro- 
poses legislation,  he  brings  measures  before  Congress  and,  in- 
deed, makes  his  initiative  in  legislation  a  chief  means  of  control 
over  the  policies  and  achievements  of  his  administration.3 

The  President  and  the  Ministers.  —  Two  main  reasons  appear 
for  the  decision  to  confer  upon  the  president  the  wide  range 
of  power  thus  outlined.     The  first  was  the  desire  of  the  mon- 

1  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit  constitutionnel  (4th  ed.),  594-603. 

2  See  p.  429. 

3  The  best  brief  accounts  of  the  French  presidency  are  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit 
constitutionnel  (4th  ed.),  536-663;  Duguit,  Manuel  de  droit  constitutionnel  (2d  ed.), 
401-435 ;  and  G.  Jeze,  "  La  presidence  de  la  republique,"  in  Rev.  dit  Droit  Pub.,  XXX, 
1 13-1 27.  A  valuable  treatise  is  Leyret,  Le  president  de  la  republique,  and  interesting 
comparisons  are  drawn  in  J.  Nadal,  Attributions  du  president  de  la  republique  en 
France  et  mix  Elats-Unis  (Toulouse,  1909).  The  best  account  in  English  is  Bodley, 
France,  II,  271-332.  Brief  popular  sketches  include  M.  Smith,  "The  French 
Presidency  and  the  American,"  in  Amer.  Rev.  of  Revs.,  Feb.,  1906,  and  J.  W.  Garner, 
"The  Presidency  of  the  French  Republic,"  in  N.  Amer.  Rev.,  Mar.,  1913.  The 
powers  and  duties  of  the  American  president  may  be  compared  by  use  of  Willoughby, 
Constitutional  Law  in  the  United  States,  II,  11 50-1 173. 


•396  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

archists  to  prevent  a  disintegration  of  authority  which  would 
make  the  revival  of  kingship  more  difficult.  Coupled  with  this 
was  the  disposition  of  the  republicans  to  accept  Large  preroga- 
tives for  the  chief  of  the  state  rather  than  run  the  risk,  of  losing 
the  republic  altogether;  although  it  is  to  be  observed  that  most 
of  the  powers  given  the  president  in  1875  had  already  figured  in 
the  constitution  of  1848,  which  certainly  was  not  tinged  with 
monarchism.  The  second  and  more  important  reason  was  the 
purpose  of  the  framers  of  the  constitution  so  to  perpetuate  and 
amplify  the  parliamentary  system  which  had  grown  up  since  the 
original  proclamation  of  the  republic  that,  whether  under  a 
republic  or  a  monarchy,  the  actual  exercise  of  the  executive  powers 
would  fall,  in  the  main,  to  a  group  of  ministers  responsible  to, 
and  controlled  by,  Parliament.  The  evidence  of  this  intention  is 
found  not  only  in  contemporary  assertions  of  Dufaure,  Laboulaye, 
and  other  statesmen,  but  in  the  constitutional  laws  themselves. 
Two  articles  of  the  law  of  February  25,  1875,  cover  the  point 
specifically.  One  of  them  stipulates  that  "  every  act  of  the  presi- 
dent of  the  republic  shall  be  countersigned  by  a  minister.'' 
The  other  provides  that  "  the  ministers  shall  be  collectively 
responsible  to  the  chambers  for  the  general  policy  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  individually  for  their  personal  acts."1  Under  the 
operation  of  these  principles  the  ministry  becomes,  as  in  England, 
the  real  executive ;  and,  as  will  appear  more  fully,  it  also  emulates 
the  example  of  the  English  cabinet  group  in  seeking  to  lead  and 
control  in  legislation.  Aside  from  various  formalities,  largely 
of  a  social  nature,  the  president  performs  no  functions  and  ex- 
ercises no  powers  independently.  Instead,  his  official  acts  are 
limited  to  those  for  which  the  ministers  are  prepared  to  bear 
responsibility  before  Parliament  and  the  nation  ;  and  in  practice 
this  means,  precisely  as  it  means  in  England,  that  it  is  the  min- 
istry itself,  and  not  the  formal  head  of  the  state,  that  makes 
decisions,  issues  orders,  and  formulates  policies.  We  say  that 
the  president  appoints  to  and  removes  from  office;  actually, 
it  is,  with  few  exceptions,  the  ministers,  collectively  or  singly, 
who  do  this ;  the  president  has  no  personal  patronage  except  a 
very  small  amount  connected  with  his  own  household.  Simi- 
larly, it  is  the  ministers  who  enforce  the  laws,  conclude  treaties, 
manage  the  army  and  navy,  introduce  "  government  "  bills  in 
Parliament,  and  promulgate  ordinances.2 

1  Arts.  3  and  6.      Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I,  287. 

-  ( )n  the  relation  of  tie  presidenl  and  the  ministers  see  especially  Leyret,  Lc 
president  de  la  ripubliquc,  61-76,  and  Dupriez,  Lcs  minhtrcs,  II,  35S-372. 


THE   PRESIDENT  AND   THE   MINISTERS  397 

The  French  executive's  position  is,  therefore,  quite  unlike  that 
of  the  president  of  the  United  States.  On  paper,  it  is  true,  the 
powers  attributed  to  the  French  president  considerably  exceed 
those  bestowed  on  the  American  president.  But,  whereas  the 
latter  officer  personally  controls  the  entire  work  of  one  great 
branch  of  the  government  and  has  direct  relations  of  the  highest 
importance  with  the  other  two  branches,  the  former  looks  on 
from  a  more  or  less  isolated  position  while  the  ministers,  over 
whom  he  has  no  effective  control,  carry  on  or  direct  the  work  of 
government  in  all  of  its  branches.  The  analogy  that  at  once 
suggests  itself  is  the  position  occupied  by  the  sovereign  in  Eng- 
land. But  even  here  the  parallel  is  not  close.  The  French 
president  lives  in  a  palace  and  bears  himself  with  something  of 
the  grand  manner  of  royalty.1  But,  after  all,  he  is  only  an  elected 
official,  serving  for  a  term  of  years,  and  will  presumably  fall  back 
again  into  the  ranks  of  ordinary  citizens.  There  is  no  halo  around 
his  head,  and  the  far-reaching  moral  influence  which  the  English 
monarch  enjoys  because  of  his  station,  his  accumulation  of  ex- 
perience, and  his  aloofness  from  party  strife  attaches  to  him  in 
only  a  slight  degree.  On  the  other  hand,  he  has  closer  personal 
contact  with  the  officers  and  affairs  of  state.  He  sits  with  and 
presides  over  the  ministry  at  its  frequent  meetings  for  the  con- 
sideration of  executive  business,  although  not  at  sessions  at  which 
questions  of  political  policy,  including  party  affairs,  are  taken  up.2 
He  can  give  audience  independently  to  foreign  ministers  and 
ambassadors,  whereas  the  English  king  can  receive  diplomats 
only  in  the  presence  of  a  minister.  The  influence  which  he  ac- 
tually wields  depends  largely,  of  course,  upon  his  own  capacity, 
interests,  and  activity.  M.  Fallieres  was  an  amiable  gentle- 
man who  was  content  to  leave  the  business  of  state  to  others; 
he  contributed  little  to  the  policies  and  achievements  of  his 
time.  M.  Poincare,  a  scholar  and  man  of  affairs,  played  a  much 
more  active  role,  and  supplied  impressive  leadership  of  the  nation 
in  its  supreme  hour  of  trial.3 

1  He  receives  from  the  state  the  sum  of  1,200,000  francs  a  year,  half  as  salary, 
half  to  cover  traveling  expenses  and  the  outlays  incumbent  upon  him  as  the  official 
representative  of  the  country.  Two  residences  also  are  put  at  his  disposal  —  the 
Palais  de  l'Elvsee  (the  splendid  structure  on  the  Champs-Elysees  in  which  Napo- 
leon signed  his  abdication  after  Waterloo)  and  the  fine  old  country  place  known 
as  the  Chateau  de  Rambouillet,  on  the  road  from  Paris  to  Chartres. 

2  See  p.  400. 

3  A.  Cohn,  "Why  M.  Fallieres  is  an  Ideal  French  President,"  in  Amer.  Rev.  of 
Revs.,  July,  1908;  L.  Jerrold,  "President  Poincare,"  in  Contemp.  Rev.,  Feb.,  1913- 
On  the  relations  of  the  president  and  the  ministers  see  Dupriez,  Les  ministres,  II, 
358-372. 


!?Q8  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

Composition  of  the  Ministry.  The  republican  constitutions 
nt'  1795  and  [848  prescribed  that  the  number  and  function-  of 
the  ministries  should  be  determined  by  the  legislature,  and  the 
instrument  of  [795  went  so  far  as  to  fix  the  maximum  number  at 

eight  and  the  minimum  at  six."  The  constitution  of  the-  Third 
Republic-,  on  the  other  hand,  is  mute  on  the  subject,  and  the  rule 
that  prevails  is  simply  a  deduction  from  the  general  character 
of  the  governmental  system.  This  rule-  is  that  ministries  are 
created  by  executive  decree,  ratified  by  Parliament  only  in  so  Ear 
as  grants  of  supplies  are  entailed.  The  authority  can  be  regarded 
as  proceeding  from  the  general  plenitude  of  executive  power 
vested  in  the  president;  or  it  can  be  derived  more  specifically 
from  the  president's  power  to  appoint  to  all  civil  offices.2  In 
this  matter,  as  in  others,  the  decision  rests  with  the  ministers 
rather  than  with  the  president  personally;  so  that,  practically. 
every  ministry  can  increase  or  reduce  the  number  of  portfolios 
and  alter  the  distribution  of  functions  at  will,  except  in  SO  far 
as  it  must  look  to  Parliament  for  the  necessary  funds.  There 
is,  however,  nothing  in  the  constitution  to  restrain  Parliament 
from  taking  the  initiative  in  establishing  a  new  ministry,  and  in 
point  of  fact  the  ministry  of  colonies  was  created  in  this  way  in 
1894. 

Beginning  with  nine  in  1875,  the  number  of  ministries  slowly 
increased  until  at  the  outbreak  of  the  Great  War  there  were 
twelve,  as  follows:  (1)  interior;  (2)  finance;  (3)  war;  (4) 
justice  ;  (5)  marine  ;  (6)  colonies  ;  (7)  public  instruction  and  the 
fine  arts;    (8)  foreign  affairs;    (9)  commerce;    (10)  agriculture; 

(11)  public  works  and  posts,  telegraphs,  and  telephones;    and 

(12)  labor.3  These  ministries  are  essentially  coordinate,  as  are 
the  ten  executive  departments  in  the  federal  government  of  the 
United  States ;  hence  they  present  an  aspect  of  symmetry  which 
is  altogether  lacking  in  the  executive  organization  of  Great  Brit- 
ain. Furthermore,  they  include  all  of  the  regular  administra- 
tive services,  which  is  not  true  of  the  American  departments. 

The  constitution  does  not  specifically  say  how  ministers  shall 
be  appointed,  but  the  right  of  the  president  to  name  them  is 
easily  derived  from  his  general  power  of  appointment.  The  first 
step  in  making  up  a  new  ministry  is  the  selection  of  the  "  presi- 

1  Art.  150.     Anderson,  Constitutions. 

'-'  For  this  form  of  the  argunn  ;  rieln,  aliments  de  droit  constituiionnel 

(4th  ed.),  669. 

'The  war  led  to  the  creation  of  two  new  ministries  —  munitions  and  blockade 
—  which  are  presumably  temporary. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE   MINISTERS  399 

dent  of  the  council,"  or  premierj1_ajioLihe.  choice  is  indicated  in 
a  presidential  decree  countersigned,  curiously  enough,  by  the 
retiring  premier.  By  custom  —  although  there  is  no  constitu- 
tional stipulation  on  the  matter  —  the  president  observes  the 
requirements  of  the  parliamentary  system ;  which  means  that 
it  theoretically  falls  to  him  merely  to  call  in  the  recognized  leader 
of  the  majority  in  the  lower  chamber  and  ask  him  to  make  up  a 
ministry.  In  England,  as  we  have  seen,  this  action  as  performed 
by  the  sovereign  is  usually  a  mere  formality.  In  France  the  case 
is  otherwise,  for  the  reason  that  there,  as  will  be  explained,  parties 
are  so  numerous  that  no  one  of  them  ever  has  a  parliamentary 
majority  alone.  It  often  therefore  becomes  a  matter  of  difficulty 
to  find  a  man  who  can  succeed  in  bringing  together  a  ministry 
that  will  command  majority  support  in  the  popular  chamber. 
Sometimes  the  post  is  tendered  to  half  a  dozen  men  before  the 
right  one  is  found.  Under  even  the  most  favorable  circum- 
stances, there  is  likely  to  be  much  uncertainty  as  to  who  will  be 
appointed,  and  whether,  after  a  man  is  appointed,  he  will  prove 
equal  to  the  demands  of  the  occasion.  This  means  that  the 
president  has  far  more  discretion  and  actual  power  in  the  selec- 
tion of  a  premier  than  does  the  sovereign  in  England.  By  custom, 
he  looks  for  information  and  advice  to  the  presidents  of  the  Senate 
and  Chamber  of  Deputies  and  to  the  chiefs  of  the  recognized 
party  groups  ;  but  the  task  of  finding  the  proper  man  is  one  which 
he  cannot  delegate  or  evade.2 

After  the  new  premier  is  finally  found,  he  selects  the  remain- 
ing ministers  and  assigns  them  to  their  posts,  first  taking  for 
himself  whatever  portfolio  he  desires.3  This,  as  has  been  inti- 
mated, is  no  simple  matter.  "  There  is  no  majority  in  the  Eng- 
lish and  American  sense  with  its  recognized  leaders  to  whom  he 
may  turn.  He  is  under  the  necessity,  therefore,  of  creating  a 
majority  through  a  judicious  distribution  of  portfolios  among  a 
certain  number  of  groups  so  that  each  member  will  bring  to  the 
support  of  the  cabinet  a  body  of  adherents.  .  .  .  During  the 
exciting  days  of  a  ministerial  crisis,  the  Parisian  journals  give 
detailed  accounts  of  the  hurried  visits  of  the  newly  appointed 
premier  to  the  houses  of  prominent  politicians,  of  his  interviews, 
pourparlers,  overtures,  solicitations,  and  possible  combinations, 

1  Originally,  the  minister  who  formed  and  gave  his  name  to  the  cabinet  was  known 
as  the  "vice-president  of  the  council " ;  but  in  1876  his  title  was  changed  to  president. 

2  Dupriez,  Les  minislres,  II,  337-341. 

3  All,  however,  are  formally  appointed  by  the  titulary  chief  executive,  as  in  Eng- 
land.    The  president  rarely  rejects  a  nominee. 


4oo  GOVERNMEN  is  oi     EUROPE 

and  each  day  there  is  a  summary  o\  his  successes  and  Failures. 
Sometimes  his  demarches  are  prolonged  through  a  period  of  several 
weeks  before  the  cabinet  is  finally  completed;  not  infrequently 
at  the  last  moment,  alter  the  li>t  has  been  sent  to  the  Journal 
Officiel  for  publication,  the  combination  is  upsel  by  with- 
drawals."1 With  rarely  an  exception  aowadays,  the  ministers 
are  members  of  the  Senate  or  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  prin- 
cipally the  latter.'-'  Whether  members  or  not,  they  have  a  right 
to  attend  all  sessions  of  both  chambers  and  to  lake  a  privileged 
part  in  debate.  They  receive  annual  salaries  of  sixty  thousand 
francs  and  reside,  as  a  rule,  in  the  official  mansion-  maintained 
for  the  heads  of  the  departments  which  they  control. 

Ministerial  Organization.  —  In  our  study  of  the  English  gov- 
ernment we  saw  that  whereas  most  of  the  ministers  are  charged, 
either  as  heads  of  departments  or  as  parliamentary  under- 
secretaries, simply  with  executive  and  administrative  work  per- 
taining to  their  respective  departments  or  offices,  a  somewhat 
variable  number  of  the  most  important  ones  form  an  inner  circle 
known  as  the  cabinet,  whose  members  not  only  individually 
supervise  such  departments  as  are  intrusted  to  them  but  collec- 
tively formulate  general  policies,  lead  in  legislation,  and  guide 
the  fortunes  of  their  party.  Arrangements  in  France  are  on 
different  lines.  In  the  first  place,  so  far  as  personnel  goes,  there- 
is  no  distinction  between  the  conseil  des  ministres  and  the  conseil 
de  cabinet,  save  that  the  president  appears  in  the  one  and  not  in 
the  other.  In  the  second  place,  the  confused  state  of  political 
parties  and  the  coalition  character  of  every  ministry  make  it 
impossible  for  the  ministerial  group  to  fulfill  the  function  of  party 
leadership  in  any  such  fashion  as  does  the  English  cabinet. 

Every  minister  has  charge  of  a  department,  to  whose  affairs 
he  gives  his  individual  attention.  Collectively,  the  ministers 
comprise,  as  has  been  indicated  ( i )  a  conseil  des  ministres,  which 
makes  decisions  on  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  exercise  of  the 
executive  powers  vested  in  the  president,  maintains  a  general 
supervision  of  the  execution  of  the  laws,  to  the  end  that  there 
may  be  efficiency  and  unity  in  the  affairs  of  state,  and  in  the  event 
of  the  president'-  resignation,  death,  or  incapacitation,  acts  as 
head  of  the  state  until  a  successor  is  elected,  and  (2)  a  conseil  de 
cabinet,  which,  like  the  English  cabinet,  deliberates  on  questions 

'J.  W.  Garner,  "Cabinet  Government  in  France,"  in  Amer.  Polil.  Sci.  Re\ 

An-..  1014.  I>p-  $66   ^07. 

-The  earlier  practice  of  appointing  non-members  to  the  portfolios  <>f  war  and 
marine  has  been  abandoned. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  MINISTERS  401 

of  general  policy  and  brings  the  government  into  close  working 
relations  with  the  chambers.1  The  council  of  ministers  is  execu- 
tive — ■  the  president's  other  self  —  and  is  expressly  recognized 
by  law;  the  cabinet  is  political  and  is  not  so  recognized.  The 
council  of  ministers  meets,  as  a  rule,  twice  a  week,  and  the 
president  not  only  attends  but  presides ;  valid  decisions  on  most 
executive  and  administrative  matters  can  be  reached  only  in  his 
presence.2  The  cabinet  commonly  meets  once  a  week,  the  presi- 
dent does  not  attend,  and  the  prime  minister  presides.  Aside 
from  the  president,  however,  the  two  bodies  are  identical  in 
personnel.     Neither  keeps  minutes  of  its  proceedings.3 

The  distribution  of  functions  among  the  several  ministries 
and  the  form  of  organization  of  each  ministerial  department  are 
determined  by  executive  regulations  —  practically,  therefore, 
by  the  ministry  itself.  The  general  field  occupied  by  each  de- 
partment is  divided  into  certain  "  services,"  which  are  liberally 
manned  with  directors,  sub-directors,  inspectors,  controllers, 
and  officers  of  other  kinds  and  grades.  There  is  a  tendency  to 
over-multiplication  of  officials,  and  it  is  on  this  account,  as  well 
as  because  of  the  highly  centralized  character  of  the  governmental 
system,  that  the  body  of  public  functionaries  in  the  decade 
preceding  the  Great  War  reached  the  remarkable  total  of  almost 
a  million,  or  an  average  of  one  functionary  for  every  forty  per- 
sons in  the  republic.4 

We  have  seen  that  the  principal  departments  in  England 
contain  several  "  under-secretaries  of  state,"  some  being  of 
ministerial  rank  and  having  seats  in  Parliament,  others  forming 
the  highest  grade  of  the  permanent  civil  service  and  therefore 
belonging  neither  to  the  ministry  nor  to  Parliament.  Under- 
secretaries of  state  were  first  appointed  in  France  in  181 6,  and 
for  a  time  they  had  only  such  subordinate  administrative  func- 
tions as  were  delegated  to  them  by  their  ministerial  superiors. 
Under  the  Orleanist  monarchy  they  began  to  act  as  the  repre- 
sentatives of  their  superiors  on  the  floors  of  the  chambers,  and 
therefore  took  on  a  political  character  similar  to  that  of  the  parlia- 
mentary under-secretaries  in  England.     In  this  form  they  were 

1  On  the  participation  of  the  ministers  in  legislation  see  Dupriez,  Lcs  ministres, 

n,  399-415- 

2  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit  constitutionnel  (4th  ed.),  676-68o._ 

3Duguit,   Manuel  de  droit  constitutionnel,  436-438;    Dupriez,   Lcs  ministres, 

II,  345-357-  .  .  ... 

4  For  an  account  of  the  ministries  as  formerly  organized  see  Dupriez,  Lcs  minis- 
tres, II,  509-523.  A  more  recent  account  is  H.  Noell,  V administration  centrah; 
les  minister es,  leur  organisation,  lew  role  (Paris,  1911).  See  also  P.  Ma,  "L'Organi- 
sation  du  ministere  des  colonies,"  in  Quest.  Dipl.  ct  Colon.,  Sept.  1,  1910. 


4o2  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

revived  in  the  period  [871  75  ;  and  while  the  constitutional  laws 
do  not  mention  them,  the  organic  act  of  November  30,  1875.  on 
the  election  of  deputies  made  indirect  provision  for  them  by  stipu- 
lating thai  a  deputy  could  serve  as  an  under-secretary  without 
the  formality  of  reelection.  Strong  differences  of  opinion  upon 
the  role  which  the  under-secretaries  should  play,  and  especially 
upon  their  responsibility  to  the  chambers,  caused  them  to  be 
dropped  out  of  the  system  altogether  for  a  time.  The  fa.  t  that 
a  French  minister  can  appear  and  speak  in  both  houses  of  Parlia- 
ment seemed  to  many  people  to  make  officers  of  the  nature  of  the 
English  parliamentary  under-secretaries  unnecessary.  Anunder- 
secretariat  was  established,  however,  in  the  ministry  of  educa- 
tion and  fine  arts  in  1905,  and  in  \(>\  1  a  similar  addition  was  made 
to  the  departments  of  justice,  interior,  and  public  works.  During 
the  Great  War  the  number  was  further  increase.  1,  at  all  events 
temporarily;  after  the  reconstruction  of  the  Viviani  ministry 
in  August,  1914,  there  were  eight  under-secretaries,  of  whom  four 
were  attached  to  the  ministry  of  war.  The  legal  and  political 
status  of  the  under-secretaries  is  a  matter  on  which  French  opin- 
ion differs.  The  prevailing  view  is  that  they  are  not  to  be  re- 
garded as  members  of  the  ministry,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that 
since  1906  they  have  been  expected  to  attend  the  meetings  of  the 
council  of  ministers.  Apparently  they  have  only  a  consultative 
voice  in  the  deliberations.  Their  relation  with  the  chambers 
is  even  more  doubtful.  Not  being  ministers,  they  are  not  strictly 
responsible.  None  the  less,  there  is  a  tendency  to  make  them  so, 
in  so  far  as  any  effective  way  of  doing  it  can  be  found.  _  They 
now  resign  in  a  body  when  a  ministry  retires,  and  an  individual 
under-secretary  has  been  known  to  resign  because  of  an  adverse 
vote  in  the  lower  house.1 

Ministerial  Responsibility.  -  The  fundamental  feature  of 
cabinet  government  is  the  responsibility  ojjdie-jninistexs  to-the 
legislature ;  and  the  French  constitution  provides  for  such  re- 
sponsibility in  a  clause  already  quoted  :  "  The  ministers  shall 
be  collectively  responsible  to  the  chambers  for  the  general  policy 
of  the  government,  and  individually  for  their  personal  acts."2 
Two  or  three  aspects  of  this  matter  are  deserving  of  comment. 
The  first  is  that  the  ministers  are  responsible  to  both  houses  of 
Parliament,  and  not  simply  to  the  lower  house  as  in  Belgium, 

1  Esmein,  Elements  d<  droit  constUutionnel  (4th  ed.),  670-676;  Duguit,  Manuel 
de  droit  constUutionnel  (2d  ed.),  4;     \4*\    J    Berthflemy,  "Les  crttaires 

d'etat,"  in  A-  1.  da  Droit  Public,  Apr.   June,   [Oil. 

2  Law  of  February  25,  1875,  Art.  6.     Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  I,  287. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE   MINISTERS  403 

Italy,  England,  Canada,  and  most  cabinet-governed  countries. 
It  is  true  that  a  few  eminent  French  authorities  hold  that  the 
ministers  are  really  responsible  only  to  the  Chamber  of  Deputies. 
But  the  argument  is  based  on  the  analogy  of  English  and  Belgian 
practice  and  of  French  practice  in  the  period  1814-48,  and  it 
ignores  not  only  the  plain  language  of  the  constitution  but  the 
reasonably  clear  intention  of  the  authors  of  that  instrument  to 
make  the  ministry  responsible  to  Parliament  as  a  whole,  as  being 
an  elective  democratic  assembly  in  both  of  its  branches.  Con- 
stitutionally, the  French  Senate  can  address  inquiries  and  inter- 
pellations l  to  the  ministers,  appoint  commissions  of  inquiry,  and 
pasTvotes  ofcensure  or  "no  confidence  "  precisely  as  does  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies,  and  with  the  same  effect.  Practically, 
much  difficulty  would  arise  if  the  upper  chamber  exercised  these 
powers  as  freely  as  the  lower,  and  it  rarely  happens  that  a  minister 
resigns  or  a  ministry  falls  because  of  senatorial  criticism.2  A 
French  ministry  must  have  more  regard  for  opinion  in  the  Senate 
than  an  English  ministry  will  ordinarily  have  for  the  views  of 
the  House  of  Lords.  Nevertheless,  direct  and  continuous  re- 
sponsibility lies  hardly  less  clearly  to  the  lower  chamber  than 
it  does  on  the  other  side  of  the  Channel.3 

A  second  fact  is  that  responsibility  is  of  three  kinds  —  political, 
penal,  and  civil;  although  the  distinction  was  not  clearly  drawn 
until  1875.  Political  responsibility  consists  simply  in  the  moral 
obligation  to  surrender  office  when  the  support  of  a  parliamentary 
majority  has  been  lost.  Penal  responsibility  is  the  legal  liability 
of  a  minister  who,  in  the  exercise  of  his  functions,  has  performed 
an  act  defined  and  prohibited  by  the  Penal  Code  or  by  a  special 
penal  law.  Civil  responsibility  is  his  liability  for  an  act  by  which 
the  state  is  made  to  suffer,  as,  for  example,  an  unauthorized  dis- 
bursement of  public  money.  Political  responsibility  is  ordinarily 
collective.  That  is,  the  ministry  stands  or  falls  as  a  body; 
although  an  individual  minister  may  be  allowed  to  take  the  blame 
for  a  policy  or  an  act  that  fails  to  win  approval,  and  to  retire 

1  See  p.  444. 

2  A  ministry  was,  however,  practically  forced  to  retire  in  1896  because  of  sena- 
torial opposition  to  an  appropriation  which  it  desired;  and  as  recently  as_  1913 
certain  ministers  resigned  because  of  the  Senate's  defeat  of  a  government  bill  for 
electoral  reform. 

3  For  a  full  discussion  of  this  subject,  together  with  an  account  of  the  notable 
controversy  to  which  it  gave  rise  in  1896,  see  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit  const  itution- 
nel  (4th  ed.),  6S8-709.  Esmein  was  one  of  those  who  held  that  the  ministers  are 
responsible  only  to  the  lower  house.  For  the  contrary  view  see  Duguit,  Manuel 
de  droll  const  it  ulionnel  (2d  ed.),  448.  The  relations  of  the  ministers  with  the  cham- 
bers are  fully  treated  in  Dupriez,  Les  minislres,  II,  395-461. 


4o4  GOVERNMENTS   OF   EUROPE 

eparately.  Penal  responsibility  and  civil  responsibility  are 
individual,  for  ministers  cannol  justly  be  held  liable  for  non- 
political  acts  in  which  they  have  uol  participated,  and  oi  which 
they  arc  perhaps  entirely  ignorant.  The  constitutional  basis  of 
penal  responsibility  is  the  stipulation  of  the  law  of  July  r.6,  1875, 
that  "  the  ministers  may  be  impeached  by  the  Chamber  of  Depu- 
ties for  crimes  committed  in  the  performance  of  their  duties; 
in  this  case  they  shall  be  tried  by  the  Senate."'  There  has 
always  been  difference  of  opinion  upon  the  kinds  of  offenses  for 
which  ministers  are  impeachable,  and  some  authorities  have  held 
that  misuse  of  power  —  bad  management  of  a  war,  for  example  — 
is  to  be  regarded  as  included.  The  usual  interpretation,  however, 
is  that  a  clear  infraction  of  the  penal  law  must  be  proved.  The 
Senate  may  impose  any  penalty  short  of  death.  Civil  responsi- 
bility is  in  an  inchoate  state.  Practically  all  writers  agree  that 
it  exists.  But  neither  the  constitutional  laws  nor  the  statutes 
say  anything  about  it,  and  neither  the  Senate  nor  any  court  is 
given  jurisdiction  of  cases  involving  it.2 

The  Civil  Service.  —  On  account  of  its  unitary  and  highly 
centralized  form  of  government,  France  intrusts  the  execution  of 
national  laws  and  the  administration  of  national  business  in  an 
exceptional  degree  to  the  officers  of  local  government  areas, 
notably  the  prefects  and  prcfectural  councils  in  the  departments, 
the  sub-prefects  in  the  arrondissements,  and  the  mayors  and  ad- 
joints  in  the  communes.  The  system  of  local  government  and 
the  connections  between  central  and  local  administration  will  be 
described  in  a  later  chapter.3  It  is  necessary,  however,  to  say  a 
word  at  this  point  about  the  general  status  of  the  "  functionaries," 
especially  the  great  body  of  employees  attached  directly  to  one 
or  another  of  the  executive  departments,  e.g.,  factory  inspectors, 
telegraph  operators,  state  railway  employees,  lighthouse  keepers, 
customs  collectors,  immigration  inspectors,  and  other  lesser 
servants  of  the  state. 

The  first  fact  to  be  observed  about  these  employees  is  that 
practically  all  appointments  arc-  made  without  examination  or 
other  formal  test  of  fitness,  and  that  there  is  no  guarantee  of 
tenure.  France  has  no  general  civil  service  law,  such  as  that 
which  aims  to  maintain  on  a  merit  basis  practically  the  whole  of 
the  service  in  Great  Britain  and  more  than  half  of  the  federal 

1  Art.  12.     Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  I,  293. 

2  Berthelemy,  Trnite  elcmrntnirc  de  droit  adminislratif  (4th  ed.),  70-75;  Esmein, 
Elements  d<-  droit  constitutionnel  (4th  ed.),  709-724. 

3  Chap.  XXVI. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND   THE   MINISTERS  405 

service  in  the  United  States.  On  the  contrary,  in  so  far  as  there 
are  regulations  covering  the  classification  of  employees,  the  condi- 
tions of  appointment  and  promotion,  and  the  protection  of  em- 
ployees from  favoritism  and  arbitrariness  on  the  part  of  the 
government,  such  regulations  are  made  independently  by  each 
department,  and  are  subject  to  any  amount  of  change  whenever 
a  new  minister  takes  charge.  An  incoming  minister  may,  of 
course,  if  he  chooses,  continue  in  operation  the  decrees  of  his 
predecessor.  But  he  is  very  likely  to  introduce  changes  repre- 
senting his  own  ideas  on  the  subject,  and  there  have  been  instances 
in  which  a  new  minister  suspended  a  decree  in  order  to  find 
places  for  his  friends,  and  subsequently  reissued  the  decree  with- 
out the  transposition  of  a  comma. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  under  these  conditions  there 
is  no  uniformity  of  policy  and  no  security  of  tenure.  The  status 
of  functionaries  in  one  department  at  a  given  time  may  be  totally 
different  from  that  of  similarly  employed  functionaries  in  other 
departments ;  and  the  policy  in  a  single  department  may  change 
over  night.  Speaking  generally,  the  spoils  system  has  held  sway 
for  more  than  forty  years  —  to  be  more  precise,  since  the  Reac- 
tionaries, at  the  height  of  the  contest  of  President  MacMahon  and 
the  Republicans  in  1877,  made  substantially  a  clean  sweep  of 
the  offices  during  their  brief  tenure  of  power.1  When  the 
Republicans  regained  control  on  this  occasion  they  carried  out 
what  was  euphoniously  called  an  epuration,  i.e.,  a  purification 
of  the  administration  from  the  enemies  of  the  republic.  The 
later  multiplicity  of  parties  prevented,  and  still  prevents,  the 
spoils  system  from  operating  smoothly,  and  almost  automatically, 
as  it  operated  at  one  time  in  the  United  States.  But  the  principle 
fully  established  itself  and  has  never  been  overthrown  ;  successive 
ministries  and  individual  heads  of  departments  still  act  upon  it 
in  so  far  as  they  desire. 

The  results  are  such  as  might  be  expected.  The  number  of 
state  employees  is  astonishingly  large,  partly  because  of  the  pres- 
sure for  patronage  by  the  ministers  and  other  members  of  Parlia- 
ment, partly  because  of  the  clamor  of  the  public  for  offices  and 
honors.  The  outlay  on  the  public  services  is,  in  the  aggregate, 
burdensome,  although  the  scale  of  salaries  is  exceedingly  low. 
The  average  pay  for  the  entire  body  of  state  employees  hardly 
exceeds  five  hundred  dollars  a  year,  and  many  thousands  receive 
less  than  half  of  that  amount.  Poor  pay  and  insecure  tenure 
tend  to  keep  capable  persons  out  of  the  service,  and  the  persons 

xSeep.  445 


406  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROP1 

who  remain  in  the  service  are  perpetually  dissatisfied  and  prone 
to  organize  themselves  in  syndicates  and  to  engage  in,  or  at  leasl 
to  threaten,  strikes.  Long  before  the  Great  War,  the  ameliora 
tion  of  the  condition  of  the  functionaries  became  an  important 
public  issue.  The  Clemenceau  government  in  1906  and  the 
Briand  government  in  1910  promised  relief,  and  the  question 
entered  prominently  into  the  parliamentary  elections  of  the  last- 
mentioned  year.  \o  headway  toward  a  solution,  however,  was 
made;  and  the  problem  is  still  unsolved.  The  minimum  pro- 
posals are  that  the  number  of  functionaries  shall  be  sharply 
reduced,  that  those  remaining  shall  be  better  paid,  that  reason- 
able security  of  tenure,  on  the  English,  American,  and  German 
models,  shall  be  established;  and  many  reformers,  both  among 
the  functionaries  and  outside,  urge  a  comprehensive  law  intro- 
ducing a  single,  nation-wide  system  of  competitive  examinations, 
such  as  is  most  fully  operative  at  the  present  day  in  Great  Britain 
under  the  order  in  council  of  1870.1 

1  See  p.  89.  There  is  no  good  account  of  the  French  civil  service  in  English. 
One  of  the  best  French  accounts  is  A.  Lefas,  L'Etal  <l  les  funclionnaires  (Paris, 
1913).  See  references  on  the  system  of  local  administration  and  its  reform,  p.  483 
below. 


CHAPTER  XXIII 

THE   STRUCTURE   OF   PARLIAMENT 

The  Bicameral  System.  —  Upon  the  break-up  of  the  Estates 
General  in  1789,  France  definitely  abandoned  the  plan  of  a 
national  assembly  based  on  the  medieval  principle  of  orders 
or  estates.  For  upwards  of  a  hundred  years,  however,  the 
form  of  parliamentary  organization  to  be  substituted  remained 
uncertain.  During  the  Revolution  ultra-democratic  reformers 
favored  a  national  assembly  of  but  one  house,  and  not  until 
the  constitution  of  1795  was  promulgated  was  a  frame  of  govern- 
ment making  provision  for  a  legislature  of  two  houses  put  in 
operation.  The  bicameral  system  of  1795-99  was  succeeded 
by  the  anomalous  legislative  regime  of  Napoleon ;  but  under  the 
Constitutional  Charter  of  18 14  the  two-house  principle  was 
revived  and  continuously  adhered  to  for  thirty-four  years. 
The  legislative  organ  of  the  Second  Republic  (1848-52)  was  a 
unicameral  assembly.  But  an  incident  of  the  transition  to  the 
Second  Empire  was  the  revival  of  a  Senate;  and  throughout 
the  reign  of  Napoleon  III  the  legislative  chambers  were  nom- 
inally two  in  number,  although  only  in  1870  was  the  Senate  as  a 
legislative  body  made  coordinate  with  the  Corps  legislatif. 

Down  to  1875  the  political  experience  of  the  nation  had  not 
proved  either  the  unicameral  or  the  bicameral  system  clearly 
superior,  and  during  the  deliberations  of  the  National  Assembly 
on  the  proposed  organic  laws  the  subject  was  long  and  ably 
debated.  The  Legitimists  and  other  conservatives  inclined  to 
the  bicameral  plan,  in  the  hope  that  an  upper  chamber  would 
serve  as  a  barrier  against  revolutionary  movements ;  although 
it  was  pointed  out  that  the  system  of  two  chambers  had  not 
averted  the  Napoleonic  coup  d'etat  of  1 799.  The  radical  followers 
of  Gambetta,  and  most  other  Republicans,  favored  the  unicameral 
principle,  without  being  disposed,  however,  to  insist  upon  it  very 
firmly.  Indeed,  English  and  American  precedent  offered  a 
strong  argument  in  the  other  direction ;  and  the  ultimate  deci- 
sion upon  the  bicameral  plan  was  inspired  perhaps  most  of  all 
by  the  consideration  that  if  a  Senate  had  proved  as  useful  as  it 

407 


4oS  GOV  ERNMEN  rS   01    EUROPE 

was  represented  to  be  in  the  United  States,  France,  as  a  greal 
republic,  ought  to  have  a  similar  feature  in  her  constitution. 

Hence,  the  opening  provision  of  the  Law  <>n  the  Organization 
of  the  Public  Powers,  adopted  February  25,  1875.  wa-  that  the 
law-making  power  should  be  exercised  by  a  national  parlia- 
ment consisting  of  a  Chamber  of  Deputies  and  a  Senate.1  The 
one  body  was  intended  to  rest  upon  a  broadly  demoi  ratic  basis. 
The  other  was  planned,  as  was  then  customary  with  second 
chambers,  to  stand  somewhat  removed  from  the  immediate 
control  of  the  voters.  Hut  both  were  charged  with  the  primary 
duty  of  enacting  into  law  the  will  of  the  people,  in  whom  the 
sovereignty  of  the  French  nation  was,  and  is,  clearly  lodged. 
Any  one  who  analyzes  the  French  governmental  system  a-  it 
operates  to-day  will  be  impressed  with  the  fact  that  the  structure 
and  organization  of  the  parliamentary  assembly  have  lent 
themselves  to  the  usages  of  a  democratic  state  in  a  measure  far 
exceeding  that  expected,  or  indeed  intended,  by  the  founders 
of  the  new  order. 

Composition  of  the  Senate.  —  Having  decided  that  the  parlia- 
ment should  consist  of  two  branches,  the  National  Assembly 
faced  the  difficult  problem  of  creating  an  upper  chamber  that 
should  not  be  a  mere  replica  of  the  lower  one,  and  yet  should  not 
inject  into  a  democratic  constitutional  system  an  incongruous 
element  of  aristocracy.  In  the  nature  of  things,  second  chambers 
must  be  hereditary,  appointed,  elected,  or  composed  of  persons 
designated  by  two  or  more  of  these  processes.  It  is  obviously 
impossible  to  plant  an  hereditary  system  in  a  new  constitution 
of  a  democratic  state,  and  no  time  was  wasted  in  discussion  of 
such  a  plan.  Appointment  by  the  president  of  the  republic  was 
considered ;  but  there  was  the  weighty  objection  that  the  presi- 
dent was  himself  to  be  elected  by  a  body  in  which  the  senators 
would  be  an  important  element.  Election  was  proposed  and 
discussed  in  many  forms :  direct  popular  election  by  the  same 
voters  who  chose  the ' deputies ;  direct  popular  election  under  a 
more  limited  franchise;  indirect  election,  which  in  turn  could 
be  made  to  take  many  different  forms. 

The  device  hit  upon  was  a  compromise,  involving  elements 
of  both  indirect  election  and  appointment.  Like  most  com- 
promises, it  was  not  shaped  on  any  single  principle,  and  it  had  no 
strictly  scientific  basis.  But  it  combined  tie-  Ideas  of  a  large 
number  of  able  men,  and  in  most  of  its  features  it  proved  more 

1  In  point  of  fact,  the  law  on  the  Organization  of  tin:  Senate  had  been  adopted 
on  the  previous  day. 


THE  STRUCTURE  OE   PARLIAMENT  409 

durable  than  its  authors  dared  hope.  The  plan  was  contained 
in  the  Law  on  the  Organization  of  the  Senate,  adopted  February 
24.  In  a  word,  it  was  that  the  Senate  should  consist  of  three 
hundred  members,  of  whom  two  hundred  and  twenty-five  should 
be  elected  (two  hundred  and  eighteen  by  the  departements  of 
France  proper  and  seven  by  Algeria,  Belfort,  and  the  colonies) 
and  seventy-five  should  be  designated  by  the  National  Assembly 
itself.1  "No  one  should  be~ chosen  who  had  not  attained  the 
age  of  forty  years,  and  who  was  not  in  enjoyment  of  full  civil 
and  political  rights.  The  elected  members  were  allotted  to 
departments  on  the  basis  of  population.  The  departments  of  the 
Seine  and  the  Nord  received  five  each ;  six  others,  four  each ; 
twenty-seven,  three  each ;  and  the  remainder,  two  each.  These 
senators  were  to  be  elected  on  a  general  ticket,  by  an  electoral 
college  meeting  at  the  capital  of  the  department  (or  colony), 
composed  of  (1)  the  department's  representatives  in  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies,  (2)  the  members  of  the  departmental  general  coun- 
cil, (3)  the  members  of  all  arrondissement  councils  within  the 
department,  and  (4)  delegates  elected,  one  by  each  communal 
council,  from  among  the  municipal,  i.e.,  communal,  voters.2 
The  term  was  to  be  nine  years,  and  the  seats  of  one  third  of  the 
elected  members  were  to  fall  vacant  every  three  years,  just  as 
one  third  of  the  senatorial  seats  fall  vacant  every  two  years  in 
the  United  States.  The  seventy-five  members  elected  by  the 
National  Assembly  were  to  retain  their  seats  for  life,  vacancies 
being  filled  as  they  arose  by  the  Senate  itself.3  The  reason  for 
introducing  this  cooperative  group  was  twofold  —  first,  to  pro- 
vide a  continuous,  steadying  element  which  would  be  beyond 
the  reach  of  fluctuations  of  public  opinion,  and,  second,  to  open 
an  easy  way  for  men  of  distinction  in  science,  letters,  law,  indus- 
try, or  commerce  to  be  made  members  of  the  body.4  It  was 
assumed  that  the  group  would  be  conservative,  if  not  indeed 
reactionary.  But  it  did  not  fall  out  so,  because  the  Legitimists, 
rather  than  permit  Orleanists  to  be  chosen,  voted  for  repub- 
licans ;  hence,  of  the  seventy-five  members  originally  named  by 
the  Assembly,  only  eighteen  were  monarchists. 

The  system  thus  instituted  continues,  in  the  main,  at  the 

1  Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  I,  288. 

2  The  department  is  the  largest  area  for  purposes  of  local  government.  The  de- 
partments are  divided  into  arrondissements,  and  the  arrondissements  are  composed 
of  communes.     See  Chap.  XXVI. 

3  Nomination  of  these  life  members  by  the  president  of  the  republic  was  strongly 
urged,  but  did_  not  prevail. 

4  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit  constitutionnel  (4th  ed.),  768. 


410  G0\  ERNMENTS  01    El  ROPE 

present  day.  The  principal  variations  from  it  arc  those  intro- 
duced in  a  statute  of  December  9,  [884,  passed  in  pursuance 
of  the  constitutional  amendment  of  the  previous  Augusl  14 
withdrawing  constitutional  character  from  the  first  seven  arti 

of  the  constitutional  law  of  February  24,  1875.  This  statute 
of  December  9 provided  (1)  that  the  cooptative  method  of  selec- 
tion should  be  abolished,  and  that,  while  present  life  members 
should  retain  their  seats  as  long  as  they  lived,  all  seats  there- 
after falling  vacant  by  the  decease  of  such  members  should  be 
allotted  to  the  departments,  to  be  filled  in  the  regular  manner, 
and  (2)  that  the  electoral  college  of  the  department  should  be 
broadened  to  include  not  merely  one  delegate  named  by  each 
communal  council,  but  from  one  to  twenty-four  (thirty  in  the 
case  of  Paris),  according  to  the  number  of  members  in  the 
council,  thus  correcting  to  some  extent  the  disproportionate 
weight  given  to  the  rural  communes  by  the  original  law.1  The 
same  measure  declared  members  of  families  that  have  reigned 
in  France  ineligible  ;  and  an  act  of  July  20,  1895,  forbids  any  one 
to  become  a  member  of  cither  branch  of  Parliament  unless  he 
has  complied  with  the  law  regarding  military  service. 

The  Senate,  therefore,  consists  to-day  of  three  hundred  mem- 
bers distributed  among  the  departments  in  approximate  pro- 
portion to  population  and  chosen  in  all  cases  by  bodies  of  electors 
all  of  whom  have  themselves  been  elected  directly  by  the  people 
or  are  delegates  of  those  so  elected.'2  Election  is  thus  indirect, 
as  was  the  election  of  senators  in  the  United  States  prior  to  the 
adoption  of  the  Seventeenth  Amendment  in  1913  ;  and  discus- 
sion of  the  relative  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  the  indirect 
principle  has  been  no  less  active  than  it  formerly  was  in  our 
own  country.  A  resolution  in  favor  of  direct  election  passed 
the  Chamber  of  Deputies  in  1884,  though  it  was  .hopped  when 
the  decision  was  reached  to  put  life  memberships  in  the  way  of 
gradual  discontinuance.  Twelve  years  later  a  brilliant  debate 
took  place  in  the  Chamber  on  two  proposed  constitutional 
amendments,  one  looking  to  direct  election  by  scrutin  dc  liste, 
i.e.,  general  ticket,  in  the  departments,  the  other  to  the  further 

1  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I,  .^10.  Gambetta  once  desi  ribed  the  Senate  as 
"  the  grand  council  of  the  communes."  [n  communes  having  onlj  one  senatorial 
el«  i<>r  the  mayor  i-  almost  invariablj    ele<  t<  d  to  serve, 

-The  presenl  apportionment  gives  the  department  of  the  Seine  ten  mci" 
that  of  the  Nord,  eight;    other  departments,  five,  four,  three,  and  two  apiece, 
down  to  the  territory  of  Belfort  and  the  three  departments  o  .  and  the  col- 

onies of  Martinique,  Guadeloupe,  Reunion,  and  the  French  West  Indies,  which 
return  one  each. 


THE  STRUCTURE  OF  PARLIAMENT  411 

popularization  of  the  electoral  colleges.  The  second  was  adopted. 
But  the  Senate  refused  to  concur.1  The  discussion  has  since 
gone  on  intermittently,  although  with  no  tangible  results. 
Among  interesting  proposals  brought  out  by  it  is  the  reconsti- 
tution  of  the  chamber,  in  whole  or  in  part,  on  the  principle  of 
the  representation  of  interests  or  groups  —  a  plan  which,  as 
we  have  seen,  has  been  advocated  as  a  basis  of  second  chamber 
reform  in  England.2 

In  point  of  fact,  the  Senate  is,  as  now  constituted,  a  very 
satisfactory  legislative  body.  From  having  long  been  viewed 
by  republicans  with  suspicion,  it  has  come  to  be  regarded  by 
most  Frenchmen  as  perhaps  the  most  perfect  work  of  the  Re- 
public. In  these  days  its  membership  is  recruited  heavily  from 
the  Deputies,  so  that  it  includes  not  only  many  men  of  distinc- 
tion in  letters  and  science  but  an  unusual  proportion  of  ex- 
perienced debaters  and  parliamentarians.  A  leading  American 
authority  has  said  that  it  is  "  composed  of  as  impressive  a  body 
of  men  as  can  be  found  in  any  legislative  chamber  the  world 
over.    6 

The  Chamber  of  Deputies :  General  Features.  —  A  curious 
illustration  of  the  unsymmetrical  and  incomplete  character  of 
the  French  constitution  of  1875  is  that  whereas  one  of  the  three 
fundamental  laws  —  the  first  one  to  be  adopted  —  is  devoted 
to  the  organization  of  the  Senate,  there  is  nothing  at  all  on  the 
composition  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  except  the  stipulation 
that  the  members  of  that  body  "  shall  be  elected  by  universal 
suffrage,  under  conditions  determined  by  the  electoral  law."  4 
The  size  of  the  chamber,  the  method  of  election,  the  suffrage  — 
whether,  indeed,  the  members  should  be  chosen  by  the  people 
directly  or  indirectly  —  was  left  to  be  determined  by  ordinary 
legislation.  The  constitution  of  the  United  States,  similarly, 
left  various  (although  fewer)  aspects  of  the  composition  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  to  be  fixed  by  ordinary  legislation. 
But  this  was  largely  a  concession  to  states'  rights,  a  considera- 
tion which  obviously  had  no  bearing  in  the  French  situation. 
The  explanation  usually  offered  by  French  writers  is  that,  whereas 

1  Esmein,  Elements  de  droll  conslltutionnel  (4th  ed.),  777-778. 

2  See  p.  159.  This  plan  is  urged  and  the  entire  subject  is  authoritatively  dis- 
cussed in  L.  Duguit,  "L'election  des  senateurs,"  in  Rev.  Polit.  ct  Pari.,  Aug.  and 
Sept.,  1895. 

3  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties  in  Continental  Europe,  I,  22.  The  principal 
treatise  on  the  Senate  is  G.  Coste,  Role  leglslatif  et  politique  du  Senat  sous  la  troisleme 
republique  (Montpellier,  1917). 

4  Law  on  the  Organization  of  the  Public  Powers,  Art.  1.  Dodd,  Modem  Constitu- 
tions, I,  286. 


.,,  GOVERNMENTS  OF    BUROP1 

the  nature  and  function,  and  eveo  the  existence,  of  the  Senate 
was  a  highly  contentious  subject,  a  popular  national  Chambi 
elected  by  direct  universal  suffrage,  was  taken  for  granted  as  a 
feature  of  the  governmental  system  required  alike  by  present 

national  opinion  and  by  the  whole  trend  "i"  political  develop- 
ment during  tlu-  past  hundred  year-.  This  being  tin-  case,  the 
detail-  of  electoral  machinery  became  a  matter  of  secondary 
importance  and  could  safely  he  left  for  determination  by  statute.' 

The  laek  was,  however.' largely  supplied  by  a  comprehensive 
electoral  law  which  the  Assembly  itself  adopted  on  November 
30,  1875  —  a  measure  which  may  be  considered  as  in  effect  a 
part  of  the  written  constitution,  although  properly  it  is  not 
such  and  the  French  do  not  so  regard  it.  Together  with  cer- 
tain surviving  portions  of  the  organic  decrees  of  February 
2,  1852,  relating  to  the  registration  of  electors,  this  act  is  the  law 
to-day,  except  in  so  far  as  it  has  been  modified  by  more  recent 
legislation.  Amending  statutes  have  been  passed,  in  the  main, 
as  follows:  (1)  June  16,  1885,  establishing  scrutin  de  lisle; 
(2)  February  13,  1889,  reviving  scrutin  d'arrondisscment ;  (3)  July 
17,  1889,  prohibiting  multiple  candidatures;  (4)  July  29,  1913, 
altering  the  method  of  balloting;  and  (5)  July  12,  1919,  reestab- 
lishing scrutin  dc  listc  and  introducing  proportional  represen- 
tation. 

The  law  of  1875  prescribed  not  only  that  deputies  should  be 
elected  in  single-member  districts,  but  that  where,  on  account 
of  excess  of  population,  it  should  be  necessary  to  subdivide  the 
normal  electoral  area,  i.e.,  the  arrondissement,  the  boundaries  of 
the  specially  created  districts  should  be  established  by  law  and 
changed  only  by  law.  This  meant  that  Parliament  was  to  have 
control  and  that  the  executive  was  not  to  have  a  chance  to 
gerrymander  the  electoral  districts  as  had  been  done  noto- 
riously under  the  Second  Empire.  A  reapportionment  is  re- 
quired by  law  after  each  quinquennial  census.  The  number  of 
deputies  was  originally  533.  This  meant  from  the  beginning  a 
large  and  somewhat  unwieldy  legislative  body;  and  there  has 
been  a  considerable  increase  of  membership,  notwithstanding 
the  slow  growth  of  the  country's  population.  On  the  basis  of 
the  census  returns  of  1906,  the  number  became,  in  1910,  597; 

1  Esmein,  Elements  dc  dm!  I  constitutionnel  ("4th  cd.).  726. 

2  See  Poincare\  Ho  Governed,  t6i.  That  the  law  1-  not  actually  a 
part  of  the  constitution  is  plainly  indicated  by  the  fact  thai  it  can  be  altered  by 
ordinary  legislation.     From  as  far  ba<  k  as  1814  the  French  have  been  accustomed 

to  consider  electoral   measures  as   not  of  the   nature  of  "constitutional  laws. 
Duguit,  Manuel  de  droit  constitutionnel,  317. 


THE  STRUCTURE  OF   PARLIAMENT  413 

similarly,  after  the  census  of  191 1  it  was  raised,  in  1914,  to  602. 
No  census  was  taken  during  the  Great  War,  and  the  number  of 
deputies  continued  without  further  change  until  19 19,  when 
provision  for  representation  of  the  recovered  territories  of 
Alsace-Lorraine  brought  up  the  figure  to  626. 

The  parliamentary  franchise  is  extended  to  all  men  who  have 
attained  the  age  of  twenty-one,  who  are  not  bankrupts,  under 
guardianship,  or  in  active  military  or  naval  service,  and  who 
have  not  by  judicial  condemnation  lost  their  civil  and  political 
rights.  Of  educational  or  property  qualifications  there  are  none. 
The  only  requirements  are  that  the  voter  shall  have  his  name 
inscribed  on  the  electoral  lists  and  shall  be  able  either  to  prove 
domicile  (as  denned  in  Article  102  of  the  Civil  Code)  in  the 
commune  in  which  he  proposes  to  cast  his  ballot  or  to  show 
that  he  has  been  a  resident  there  for  six  months.  Notwith- 
standing the  fact  that  manhood  suffrage  has  prevailed  since 
the  revolution  of  1848,  there  has  been  no  such  demand  for  the 
enfranchisement  of  women  as  has  stirred  both  England  and  the 
United  States ;  and  no  legislation  upon  the  subject  has  been 
enacted.  Indeed,  in  1913  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  overwhelm- 
ingly ^rejected  a  woman's  suffrage  bill,  and  two  woman's  suffrage 
amendments  to  the  electoral  bill  of  191 9  were  voted  down 
decisively. 

The  terms  upon  which  the  suffrage  is  exercised  are  fixed  by 
national  law.  But  the  keeping  and  the  annual  revision  of  the 
electoral  lists  devolve  upon  the  commune;  and  since  1884  the 
lists  have  been  identical  for  communal,  district,  departmental, 
and  national  elections.  The  registration  system,  which  is  based 
on  Napoleon  Ill's  organic  decree  of  1852,  is  simple,  inexpensive, 
and  effective,  contrasting  sharply  with  the  system  prevailing 
in  England  before  the  reform  of  1918.1  The  work  is  actually 
done  in  each  commune  by  a  commission  consisting  of  the  mayor, 
an  appointee  of  the  communal  council,  and  an  appointee  of  the 
prefect  of  the  department.  If  a  man  has  residences  in  several 
communes  he  can  choose  the  commune  in  which  he  will  be 
registered,  but  he  cannot  be  a  parliamentary  voter  in  one  and  a 
municipal  voter  in  another.  There  is  not  a  trace  of  plural 
voting.2 

1  See  p.  133.     Cf.  Bodley,  France,  II,  67-77. 

2  The  electoral  franchise  in  France  is  treated  historically  in  A.  Tecklenburg, 
Die  Entwickelung  des  Wahlrechts  in  Frankreich  scit  1789  (Tubingen,  1911),  and  more 
briefly  in  P.  Meuriot,  La  population  et  les  lois  electorates  en  France  de  1789  a  nos  jours 
(Paris,  1917). 


4i4  GOVERNMENTS  OF   II  ROPE 

Term  and  Qualifications.  The  full  membership  of  the 
Chamber  is  elected  simultaneously  for  a  four-year  term.  Theo- 
retically,  as  has  been  observed,  the  C4wrrTrr7eF  may  be  dissolved 
at  any  time  by  the  president,  with  the  assent  of  the  Senate. 
Hut  there  has  been  only  one  such  dissolution  (1877),  and  a 
newly  eli  now  practically  certain  to  til!  gut  its 

full  four  \var>.  Parliamentary  elections]  therefore,  t 
with  the  same  regularity  as  congressional  elections  in  the  United 
States,  although  only  half  as  frequently.  The  term  of  members 
was  fixed  at  four  years  as  a  compromise  between  the  shorter 
and  longer  periods  with  which  France  had  experimented.  The 
constitution  of  1791  made  the  legislative  term  two  years,  the 
republican  instruments  of  1795  and  1848  made  it  three  years; 
on  the  other  hand,  the  constitution  of  [799  and  the  Charter  of 
1814  made  it  five  years,  and  the  constitution  of  1852  raised  ii 
to  six.  The  choice  of  a  four-year  period  in  1875  has  proved 
generally  satisfactory. 

On  the  rule  which  requires  the  Chamber  to  be  renewed  inte- 
grally rather  than  partially  there  has,  however,  been  much  differ- 
ence of  opinion.1  In  view  of  the  gain  in  continuity  and  the 
other  advantages  inherent  in  a  system  of  partial  renewal,  stu- 
dents of  politics  have  raised  the  natural  inquiry,  If  partial  re- 
newal is  (as  is  generally  admitted)  desirable  in  the  Senate,  why 
is  it  not  equally  so  in  the  Chamber?  The  answer  commonly 
made  is  that  under  a  cabinet  system  of  government  it  is  neces- 
sary that  the  chamber  which  possesses  the  power  to  make  and 
unmake  ministries  shall  be  completely  and  instantly  responsive 
to  the  will  of  the  nation ;  which  means  that  when  dissolutions 
take  place,  with  a  view  to  ascertaining  whether  the  people  are 
behind  the  ministry  or  the  chamber,  the  entire  electorate  must 
have  an  opportunity  to  express  itself  simultaneously.3  In 
point  of  fact,  dissolutions  before  the  close  of  the  four-year  period 
no  longer  take  place  in  France.  Nevertheless,  the  entire  theory 
of  the  cabinet  system  is  such  as  to  give  the  foregoing  reply 
convincing  force.4 

Members  of  the  Chamber  are  required  to  be  voters,  and  not 

1  The  constitutions  of  1795,  1799,  and  1814  provided  for  partial  renewal;  those 
of  1791,  1848,  and  r8s2,  for  integral  renewal. 

2  M.  I  >uguil  propounds  this  query  in  his  article  "  [/election  des  senateurs,"  A'<  v. 
Polit.  el  Par/.,  Sept.,  1895,  P 

3Esmein,  aliments  dc  droit  constituHonnel  (4th  ed.),  754 

1  It  is,  however,  to  be  noted  that  the  Briand  ministry  broughl  forward  a  plan  in 
1010  calling  for  extension  of  the  life  of  a  Chamber  from  four  to  six  years  and  the 
election  of  one  third  of  the  members  every  two  years. 


THE   STRUCTURE  OF  PARLIAMENT  415 

less  than  twenty-five  years  of  age.  These  are  the  only  positive 
qualifications.  Residence  in  the  constituency  represented  is 
not  necessary,  and  deputies  sit  for  districts  other  than  those  in 
which  they  live  considerably  more  frequently  than  do  congress- 
men in  the  United  States,  although  by  no  means  so  often  as  do 
members  of  the  House  of  Commons  in  England.1  There  are, 
of  course,  certain  disqualifications.  No  soldier  or  sailor  in 
active  service  can  be  elected ;  and  a  law  of  1885  debars  members 
of  families  who  have  ever  reigned  in  France.  In  addition,  there 
are  incompatibilities;  that  is  to  say,  there  are  many  public 
offices,  both  national  and  local  —  in  general,  those  that  are 
salaried  —  which  one  cannot  occupy  and  yet  become,  or  remain, 
a  deputy.  The  list  of  exceptions  is,  however,  long,  and  it  is 
to  be  noted  that  deputies  who  are  appointed  to  ministerial 
posts  not  only  are  excepted,  but  are  not  under  the  necessity,  as 
they  are  in  England,  of  seeking  reelection.2  Until  1919,  all  that 
was  required  of  a  person  who,  possessing  the  requisite  qualifi- 
cations, wished  to  be  a  candidate  for  a  seat  in  the  Chamber  was 
that  five  days  before  the  election  he  should  deposit  with  the 
prefect  of  the  department  within  which  the  polling  was  to  take 
place  a  declaration,  witnessed  by  a  mayor,  of  the  name  of  the 
constituency  in  which  he  proposed  to  seek  election.  Even  this 
trifling  formality  was  introduced  only  by  the  Multiple  Candi- 
dature Act  of  1889,  which  forbids  a  person  to  be  a  candidate  in 
more  than  one  district.  Since  191 9  one  can  be  a  candidate 
only  if  supported  by  the  signatures  of  one  hundred  voters.3 

Electoral  Procedure.  —  All  parliamentary  elections  are  au- 
thorized and  proclaimed  by  a  decree  of  the  president  of  the 
republic.  The  electoral  process  is  simple  and  inexpensive. 
Voting  is  by  secret  ballot,  and  the  balloting  lasts  only  one  day. 
As  a  rule,  the  polling  takes  place  in  the  mairie,  or  municipal 
building,  of  the  commune,  under  the  immediate  supervision  of 
an  electoral  bureau  consisting  of  a  president  (usually  the  mayor) , 
four  assessors,  and  a  secretary.  In  the  majority  of  communes 
all  of  the  inhabitants  are  known  one  to  another.  For  the  sake 
of  regularity,  however,  and  to  furnish  means  of  identifying  the 
voters  as  they  appear,  cartes  electorates  are  distributed  among 
the  electors  in  advance  of  the  election.     There  is  a  card  for  each 

1  The  electoral  law  of  1910,  which  displaced  the  arrondissement  by  the  department 
as  the  electoral  area,  tends  to  reduce  the  number  of  deputies  living  outside  the 
bounds  of  their  constituencies.     See  p.  113. 

2  Law  on  the  Election  of  Deputies,  Arts.  6-12.  Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions, 
I,  303-306. 

3  See  p.  425. 


416  .      (io\  ERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

elector,  indicating  the  name  <>i"  the  department  and  commune, 
the  nature  and  date  of  the  election,  the  name  of  the  elector, 
his  number  on  the  register,  and  the  polling  place.  Before  de 
positing  his  ballot  the  voter  hands  his  card  to  one  of  the  asse  ors, 
who  reads  off  the  name  inscribed  on  it  for  the  se<  retary  to  i  heck 
on  the  list  of  ele<  tors  before  him.  The  card  is  returned,  because 
the  elector  will  need  it  if  a  second  ballot  proves  necessary;  bul 
a  corner  i>  clipped  off  to  prevent  it  from  being  used  again  at  the 
present  balloting,  and  also  to  provide  a  means  of  checking  the 
number  of  ballots  cast.  At  the  close  of  the  polling  the  votes  are 
counted  by  the  election  officers,  assisted  by  "scrutineers" 
selected  from  among  the  electors  present ;  and  the  counting 
must  be  done  at  tables  so  placed  that  the  voters  can  walk  around 
them  and  survey  the  process.  The  returns  are  immediately 
transmitted  to  the  chief  town  of  the  canton,  whence  they  are 
sent  via  the  arrondissement  capital  to  the  department  capital, 
where  the  results  are  announced.  Under  the  system  prevailing 
until  1919,  if  it  was  found  that  no  candidate  within  the  district 
had  polled  an  absolute  majority  of  the  votes  cast,  and  at  the 
same  time  a  fourth  of  the  number  which  the  registered  voters 
of  the  district  were  legally  capable  of  casting,  a  second  balloting, 
known  as  balloltage,  was  ordered  for  two  weeks  from  the  ensuing 
Sunday.  No  one  of  the  candidates  voted  for  dropped  out  of 
the  contest,  unless  by  voluntary  withdrawal ;  new  candidates, 
at  even  so  late  a  day,  might  enter  the  race;  and  whoever,  at  the 
second  balloting,  secured  a  plurality  was  declared  elected.  The 
second  ballot  is  a  familiar  device  in  continental  countries.  It 
is  most  advantageously  used,  however,  to  ascertain  the  pref- 
erence of  the  voters  as  between  the  two  candidates  who  stood 
highest  at  the  first  ballot  —  in  other  words,  to  secure  a  majority 
election.  As  employed  in  France,  before  1919,  it  was  of  doubt- 
ful value.  The  principle  is  retained  in  the  law  of  1919,  but,  as 
will  appear,  it  is  differently  applied.1 

Formerly  the  conduct  of  elections  was  considerably  less  satis- 
factory than  it  is  to-day.  The  chief  difficulty  was  the  lack  of 
adequate  protection  of  the  secrecy  of  the  ballot.  The  electoral 
law  of  November  30,  1875,  stipulated  that  voting  should 
be  secret,  but  it  unfortunately  did  not  set  aside  that  portion 
of  the  electoral  decree  of  1852  which  provided  that  ballots  should 
be  marked  outside  the  voting  hall  and  that  they  should  be  handed 
by  the  voter  to  the  president  of  the  electoral  bureau  (usually 
the  mayor),  who  should  deposit  them  in  the  urn.     As  was  true 

1  See  p.  426. 


THE   STRUCTURE  OF  PARLIAMENT  417 

in  England  until  191 8,  and  as  is  still  true  in  some  European 
countries,  the  ballot-papers  were  supplied,  not  by  the  state,  but 
by  the  candidates  ;  and  often  they  were  distributed  to  the  voters 
in  their  homes  by  the  candidate  or  his  agents  several  days  before 
the  election  was  to  take  place.  The  requirement  that  all  ballots 
should  be  made  of  white  paper  and  should  be  without  any  out- 
ward signs  or  marks  did  not,  in  practice,  prevent  the  papers 
from  being  so  prepared  (as  to  size,  shape,  or  texture),  that  the 
election  officer,  and  even  the  bystanders  who  under  French 
usage  are  freely  admitted  to  the  polling  places,  could  readily 
distinguish  between  those  of  the  different  candidates.  The 
situation  was  like  that  which  we  had  in  our  own  American 
states  before  they  adopted  the  Australian  ballot  system,  whose 
cardinal  feature  is  the  issuing  of  ballot-papers  only  under  au- 
thority of  the  state,  and  to  the  voters  as  they  actually  use  them 
at  the  polls.  Measures  designed  to  secure  genuine  secrecy  of 
the  ballot,  and  to  remedy  various  electoral  abuses,  received  much 
attention  in  Parliament  after  1900,  but  it  was  only  in  191 3  that 
the  chambers  could  come  into  agreement  upon  a  bill.  A  law 
promulgated  July  29  of  that  year  provided  (1)  that  when  the 
voter  presents  himself  at  the  polls  he  shall  be  given  an  official 
ballot  and  an  opaque  envelope  furnished  by  the  prefectural 
authorities,  (2)  that  he  shall  retire  to  a  private  booth  and  there 
seal  his  ballot  in  the  envelope,  and  (3)  that  he  shall  personally 
deposit  the  envelope  in  the  electoral  urn.  These  regulations 
have  at  last  made  it  possible  for  an  elector  to  vote  in  complete 
secrecy  if  he  desires  to  do  so.  The  safeguarding  of  the  purity 
of  elections  by  a  general  corrupt  and  illegal  practices  act,  such 
as  exists  in  England  and  in  our  American  states,  remains  to  be 
undertaken ;  although  moderately  effective  laws  against  bribery 
and  similar  offenses  have  been  passed.  It  may  be  added  that  the 
central  government,  through  its  local  agents,  exerts  much  influ- 
ence in  parliamentary  elections.  But  all  of  the  more  important 
political  groups  have  profited  at  one  time  or  another  by  the 
practice,  and  it  is  not  generally  condemned.1 

1  The  electoral  process  is  described  briefly  in  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit  con- 
stitutionnel  (4th  ed.),  745-752,  and  more  fully  in  Bodley,  France,  II,  89-149.  The 
conditions  leading  to  the  reform  of  1913  are  described  in  J.  W.  Garner,  "Electoral 
Reform  in  France,"  in  Amer.  Polit.  Sci.  Rev.,  Nov.,  1913.  The  electoral  system,  in 
general,  as  it  was  before  the  revolutionizing  legislation  of  1919  is  described  in  M. 
Block,  Dictionnaire  de  V administration  franqaise  (5th  ed.,  Paris,  1905),  I,  1208- 
1244;  E.  Pierre,  Code  des  elections  politiques  (Paris,  1893);  E.  Zevort,  La  France 
sous  le  regime  du  suffrage  universel  (Paris,  1894) ;  and  Chaute-Grellet,  Traite  des 
elections,  2  vols.   (Paris,  1897).     The  subject  is  treated  on  comparative  lines  in 


418  GOVKRXMKN  1-   OF    II  ROPE 

Electoral  Reform:  Scrutin  d'arrondissement  and  Scrutin 
de  liste.  —  In  the  decade  preceding  the  Great  War  there  wras 
much  discussion,  in  Parliament  and  throughout  the  country,  of 
questions  pertaining  to  the  remodeling  of  the  electoral  sj 
indeed,  it  may  be  said  that  after  tin-  relations  of  church  and  state 
v.vi  finally  fixed  by  the  separation  law  of  1905  electoral  reform 
took  the  place  of  the  religious  question  as  the  paramount  issue 
in  French  domestic  politics.  The  questions  under  consideration 
related  only  incidentally  to  tin  franchise.  The  country  already 
had  manhood  suffrage.  There  was  no  plural  voting.  The  only 
possible  franchise  question  was  the  extension  of  the  suffrage  to 
women,  for  which,  as  has  been  said,  there  has  been  less  demand 
in  France  than  in  Great  Britain,  the  United  States,  and  a  number 
of  other  countries.1  The  questions  which  assumed  political 
importance  were  rather  such  as  related  to  the  conditions  under 
which  the  existing  scheme  of  manhood  suffrage  should  be 
operated. 

Chief  among  these  questions  was  the  electoral  area  to  be 
employed  in  parliamentary  elections.  On  this  point  two  prin- 
ciples have  contended  for  favor  in  France  ever  since  manhood 
suffrage  was  established.  The  one  is  scrutin  uninominal,  involv- 
ing the  distribution  of  the  deputies  among  small,  single-member 
constituencies ;  the  other  is  scrutin  de  liste,  involving  the  election 
of  several  deputies  within  a  larger  area  on  a  general  ticket,  as, 
for  example,  presidential  electors  are  voted  for  in  an  American 
state.  The  area  usually  employed  as  a  single-member  con- 
stituency has  been  the  arrondissement ;  hence  the  single-member 
plan  is  commonly  designated  scrutin  d'arrondissement.  The  list 
system,  with  the  department  as  the  area,  prevailed  from  1848  to 
1852,  but  the  elections  of  the  Second  Empire  were  carried  out 
under  scrutin  d'arrondissement.  Revived  in  1870  by  the  Gov- 
ernment of  National  Defense  for  the  election  of  the  National 
Assembly,  scrutin  de  liste  was  again  displaced,  in  1875,  by  the 
Law  on  the  Election  of  Deputies,  which  stipulated  that  deputies 
should  be  "  elected  by  single  districts,"  one  in  each  arrondisse- 
ment.2 The  republican  elements  inclined  strongly  to  the  list 
system,  and  in  his  last  years  Gambetta  put  himself  at  the  head 
of  a  movement  for  its  reestablishment.  In  1881  a  bill  on  the 
subject,   after  passing  in   the   Chamber,   was  rejected  by   the 

Lef&vre-Pontali-,  Lois  cl  les  vuturs  electorates  (Paris,  (885),  and  Lcs  elections  en 
Europe  a  la  fin  de  dixnenvieme  siecle  (Paris,  1902). 

1  V.  de  I'oulpiquet,  Is  suffrage  de  In  femme  en  France  (Paris,  1913). 

2Art.  14.     Dodd,   Modem  Constitutions,  I,  306. 


THE  STRUCTURE  OF  PARLIAMENT  419 

Senate.  But  four  years  later  such  a  measure  became  law,  and 
the  department  once  more  became  the  electoral  area.  The 
results  were  disappointing  to  the  supporters  of  the  change,  for 
at  the  ensuing  elections  the  conservative  and  reactionary  forces 
in  the  Chamber  were  decidedly  strengthened.  Moreover, 
General  Boulanger  found  the  system  admirably  adapted  to  his 
questionable  purposes ;  his  plan  to  secure  the  indorsement  of  the 
mass  of  the  French  people  by  standing  for  election  in  each  suc- 
cessive constituency  in  which  a  vacancy  arose  could  practically 
be  realized  by  carrying  a  few  of  the  large  departments  such  as 
the  Seine  and  the  Nord.  The  upshot  was  that,  before  another 
national  election  came  on,  Parliament,  in  February,  1889,  re- 
pealed the  act  of  1885  and  restored  the  scrutin  d'  arrondissement.1 
From  1889  to  191 9  the  normal  electoral  area  was,  therefore, 
the  arrondissement.  Each  administrative  arrondissement  in  the 
departments  and  each  municipal  arrondissement  in  Paris  and  in 
Lyons  2  returned  one  deputy,  regardless  of  population  or  size. 
An  arrondissement  containing  more  than  one  hundred  thousand 
people  was  entitled  to  one  additional  deputy  for  every  hundred 
thousand,  or  fraction  thereof,  in  excess ;  and  in  such  a  case  the 
arrondissement  was  laid  out  in  the  requisite  number  of  single- 
member  sub-districts.  This  was  as  far  as  the  principle  of  equal 
electoral  districts  was  carried.  A  reapportionment  involved 
nothing  more  than  a  fresh  measuring  up  of  the  arrondissements 
by  this  standard ;  the  arrondissements  themselves  were  perma- 
nent administrative  areas  whose  boundaries  were  rarely  or  never 
changed.  This  meant  that  the  number  of  voters  varied  enor- 
mously, not  only  from  arrondissement  to  arrondissement,  but  even 
within  the  constituencies  of  the  same  arrondissement  from 
election  to  election.  Five  arrondissements  constituting  the 
department  of  Basses- Alpes,  containing  (in  1914)  107,234  inhabit- 
ants and  33,677  electors,  returned  five  deputies;  five  arrondisse- 
ments composing  the  department  of  Sarthe,  containing  419,370 
inhabitants  and  120,690  electors,  also  returned  five  deputies. 
The  arrondissement  of  Carcassonne  at  the  election  of  1889  had  a 
population  just  exceeding  one  hundred  thousand,  and  was 
divided  into  two  constituencies,  each  returning  a  deputy.  But 
at  the  census  of  1891  the  population  had  dropped  slightly  under 
one  hundred  thousand,  whereupon  the  entire  arrondissement 
became  one  constituency  returning  a  single  member.3     To  employ 

1  Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  I,  318. 

2  See  p.  480. 

.3  Bodley,  France,  II,  86. 


420  G0\  ERNMENTS   OF   EURO!  E 

English  phraseology,  France  scrupulously  enforced  the  rule  of 
"  one  man.  one  vote,"  bul  ignored  the  rule  of  "one  vote,  one 
value." 

Those  who  criticized  the  electoral  system  as  it  stood  in  [014 
were  by  no  means  agreed  upon  the  changes  that  ought  to  l>e 
made;  but  there  were  two  principal  programs.  One  railed 
simply  for  the  substitution  of  scrutin  de  lisle  for  scrutin  d'arron- 
dissement.  The  other  proposed  both  a  revival  of  scrutin  de  liste 
and  the  adoption  of  a  plan  of  proportional  representation.  The 
arguments  most  frequently  heard  in  behalf  of  a  return  to  the 
list  system  were:  (1)  scrutin  uninominal  too  greatly  restricts 
the  political  horizon  of  both  the  voter  and  the  deputy.  The 
voter  tends  to  regard  the  deputy  as  a  mere  agenl  senl  to  Paris 
by  the  community  to  obtain  offices  and  favors  for  his  neighbors; 
the  deputy  is  likely  to  fall  in  with  this  view  of  his  function  and 
to  take  only  a  secondary  interest  in  legislative  problems  which 
are  of  importance  to  the  country  as  a  whole.  If,  it  was  urged, 
all  deputies  from  a  department  were  elected  on  a  single  ticket, 
the  voter  would  have  more  power  and  would  value  his  privilege 
more  highly,  the  candidate  would  be  in  a  position  to  make  a 
more  dignified  campaign,  and  issues  which  are  national  in  their 
scope  would  less  frequently  be  obscured  by  questions  and  interests 
of  a  petty  and  purely  local  character.  (2)  Scrutin  de  lisle  har- 
monizes better  than  scrutin  d'arrondissement  with  the  theory 
of  representation  in  France,  which  is  that  deputies  go  to  Paris 
as  representatives  of  the  nation  as  a  whole,  and  not  of  a  single 
locality.  (3)  The  list  system  would  enable  the  deputy  to  view 
with  equanimity  the  suppression  of  various  unnecessary  local 
offices  and  honors,  and  hence  would  promote  administrative 
reform.  (4)  The  election  of  deputies  from  larger  districts  would 
diminish  the  evil  of  government  interference  in  elections,  for  the 
reason  that  the  larger  the  district  from  which  the  deputy  is 
chosen  the  more  difficult  it  would  be  to  influence  enough  voters 
to  affect  the  result.  (5)  Enlargement  of  the  electoral  area 
would  tend  to  correct  the  gross  inequalities  of  representation 
which  arise  from  maintaining  a  multiplicity  of  petty  and  un- 
changeable electoral  circumscriptions.1  It  is  true  that  in  the 
period  1885-89  these  various  ends  were  not  appreciably  attained  ; 
indeed,  as  has  been  said,  the  system  lent  itself  to  the  menacing 
operations  of  the  ambitious  Boulanger  as  scrutin  d'arrondissemenl 

1  Duguit,  Traili-  dc  droit  constikUionnel,  I,  .575-376.  These  and  other  arguments 
are  clearly  and  fully  presented  in  Garner,  "Electoral  Reform  in  France,"  in  Anicr. 
Poll!.  Sci.  Rev.,  Nov.,  1013. 


THE   STRUCTURE  OF  PARLIAMENT  421 

could  not  possibly  have  done.  It  is  but  fair,  however,  to  observe 
that  the  trial  of  the  system  was  very  brief  (at  a  single  general 
election),  and  that  it  fell  in  a  period  of  unusual  political  unset- 
tlement. 

Electoral  Reform  :  Proportional  Representation.  —  "  Elected 
assemblies,"  declared  Mirabeau,  more  than  a  century  ago,  "  may 
be  compared  to  geographical  charts,  which  ought  to  reproduce 
all  the  elements  of  the  country  with  their  proportions,  without 
allowing  the  more  considerable  elements  to  eliminate  the  lesser  "  ; 
and  in  the  judgment  of  many  French  reformers  of  more  recent 
days  a  simple  enlarging  of  the  electoral  unit,  however  desirable 
in  itself,  would  be  by  no  means  adequate  to  place  the  national 
parliament  upon  a  satisfactory  basis.  Before  the  close  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  demand  arose  for  the  adoption  of  some 
scheme  whereby  minorities  in  the  several  departments  should 
become  entitled  to  a  proportionate  voice  in  the  Chamber  at 
Paris.  Hence  a  second  program  of  reform  became  that  calling 
not  merely  for  the  scrutin  de  liste,  but  also  for  proportional  repre- 
sentation. Within  the  past  two  decades  the  spread  of  propor- 
tional representation  in  Europe  has  been  rapid.  Beginning  in 
1891,  the  device  has  been  adopted  by  one  after  another  of  the 
Swiss  cantons,  until  now  it  is  in  use  in  about  half  of  them.  Since 
1899  Belgium  has  employed  it  in  the  election  of  all  members  of 
both  chambers  of  her  parliament.  In  1906  it  was  adopted  by 
Finland  and  by  the  German  state  of  Wurttemberg.  In  1908 
Denmark,  which  has  employed  the  system  in  the  election  of 
members  of  the  upper  chamber  since  1867,  extended  its  use  to 
election  in  the  municipalities;  and  in  191 5  it  was  introduced  in 
the  election  of  members  of  the  lower  parliamentary  chamber. 
In  1907  an  act  of  the  Swedish  parliament  (confirmed  after  a 
general  election  in  1909)  applied  it  to  elections  for  both  legislative 
chambers,  all  parliamentary  committees,  and  provincial  and 
town  councils.1  In  France  a  Proportional  Representation 
League,  established  in  1909,  steadily  carried  on  vigorous  and 
nation-wide  propaganda.  The  principal  arguments  employed 
were :  (1)  that  the  proposed  reform  would  greatly  increase  the 
aggregate  vote  cast  in  parliamentary  elections,  since  electors 

1  The  plan  has  made  large  headway  also  outside  of  Europe.  The  first  English- 
speaking  state  to  adopt  it  was  Tasmania,  where,  after  being  in  partial  operation 
in  1896-1901,  it  was  brought  fully  into  effect  in  1907.  By  an  electoral  law  of  1900, 
Japan  adopted  it  for  the  election  of  the  members  of  her  House  of  Commons.  The 
system  was  put  in  operation  in  Cuba,  April  1,  1908,  and  was  adopted  in  Oregon  by 
a  referendum  of  June  1,  1908.  There  have  been  several  later  adoptions,  e.g., 
Switzerland,  for  the  election  of  the  National  Council,  in  1918. 


I  t2  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

belonging  to  minority  parties  would  be  assured  of  actual  repre- 
sentation; (2)  thai  ii  would  no  Longer  be  possible  for  the  number 
of  voters  unrepresented  by  deputies  of  their  own  political  faith 
to  be  in  excess,  as  they  frequently  were,  of  the  number  of  ele<  tors 
so  represented; '  and  (3)  thai  a  parliament  in  which  the  various 
parties  are  represented  in  proportion  to  their  voting  strength 
can  be  depended  upon  to  know  and  to  execute  the  will  of  the 
nation  with  more  precision  than  can  a  Legislative  body  elected 
under  the  majority  system.2 

The  Government  and  Electoral  Reform.  —  After  [905  every 
ministry  was  more  or  less  explicitly  committed  to  electoral 
reform.  In  1907  a  special  committee  of  the  Chamber  of  Depu- 
ties (the  Commission  du  Suffrage  Universel)  reported  a  scheme  of 
proportional  representation,3  and  in  1909  the  Chamber  passed  a 
resolution  favoring  the  adoption  of  the  principle  in  some  form. 
It  will  be  observed,  of  course,  that  while  scrulin  de  lisle  might 
be  set  up  without  proportional  representation,  any  plan  of  pro- 
portional representation  would  make  necessary  the  enlarging 
of  the  electoral  area  and  the  choice  of  deputies  on  a  general 
ticket.  At  the  parliamentary  elections  of  April-May,  1910,  the 
issue  of  electoral  reform  overshadowed  all  others.  According 
to  a  tabulation  by  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior,  of  the  597  depu- 
ties chosen  at  this  time,  94  had  not  declared  themselves  on  elec- 
toral reform,  35  were  opposed  to  any  change  in  the  existing 
system,  32  were  in  favor  of  a  slightly  modified  scrulin  d'arroudissc- 
tnent,  64  were  in  favor  of  serulin  de  lisle  on  a  majority  basis,  272 
favored  scrutin  de  lisle  combined  with  proportional  representa- 
tion, and  88  were  known  to  be  friendly  to  electoral  reform 
although  not  committed  to  any  particular  program. 

On  at  least  four  occasions  in  the  next  twro  years  the  Chamber 
elected  in  1910  declared  by  heavy  majorities  in  favor  of  reform ; 
and  it  almost  constantly  had  under  consideration  some  measure 
upon  the  subject.  The  ministry  of  M.  Poincare,  established  at 
the  beginning  of  191 2,  asserted  that  the  nation  had  unmistakably 

1  It  was  asserted  by  M.  Benoist,  founder  of  tlie  League,  that  tin's  situation  had 
existed  uninterruptedly  sin<  e  [881.  An  interesting  fact  cited  is  that  the  Separa- 
tion Law  of  1905  was  adopted  in  the  Chamber  by  the  votes  of  341  deputies,  who 
represented  in  thi  only  2,647,315  electors  in  a  national  total  of  10,967,000. 

Cf.  Duguit,  Droit  constitutionnel,  I,  3S0. 

2DuKuit,  op.  tit.,  argues  forcefully  in  behalf  of  the  proposed  change.  For  ad- 
verse views,  cogently  stated  by  an  equally  eminent  French  authority,  see  Esmein, 
aliments  de  droit  constitutionnel  (4th  ed.),  240-.' 

3  Elections  were  to  be  by  scrulin  de  liste,  and  the  elector  was  to  be  allowed  to  cast 
as  many  votes  as  there  were  plat  es  to  It  filled  and  to  <  ont  entrate  as  many  of  these 
votes  as  he  liked  upon  a  single  candidate.  An  English  translation  of  the  proposed 
law  is  printed  in  Humphreys,  Proportional  Representation,  382-385. 


THE   STRUCTURE  OF  PARLIAMENT  423 

expressed  its  desire  for  reform  and  promised  to  take  steps  forth- 
with to  obtain  a  law  that  would  "  secure  a  more  exact  repre- 
sentation for  political  parties  and  would  confer  upon  deputies 
the  freedom  that  is  required  for  the  subordination  of  local  in- 
terests in  all  cases  to  the  national  interest."  During  succeeding 
months  consideration  of  the  subject  was  pressed  in  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies,  and  on  July  10  the  Government's  Electoral  Reform 
Bill,  providing  for  both  scrutin  de  liste  and  proportional  repre- 
sentation, was  carried  by  a  vote  of  339  to  217. 1  In  the  Senate 
the  bill  encountered  determined  opposition.  It  was  referred  to  a 
commission,  whose  report  was  unfavorable ;  and  under  the 
persuasive  leadership  of  Clemenceau  and  Combes,  who  con- 
tended that  the  representation  of  minorities  would  operate  to 
strengthen  the  clerical  elements,  the  body  finally  rejected  the 
measure.  The  deadlock  between  the  two  houses  which  followed 
the  bill's  defeat  caused  the  fall  of  the  Briand  ministry  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1913.  Two  succeeding  ministries  —  those  of  Barthou 
and  Doumergue  —  contributed  nothing,  but  the  issue  was 
clearly  before  the  country  at  the  elections  of  April,  1914,  and  the 
results  again  indicated  strong  popular  interest  in  the  subject. 
When,  however,  in  the  following  summer,  the.  way  became 
reasonably  clear  for  a  resumption  of  electoral  discussion  in  Parlia- 
ment, the  issue  was  again  thrown  completely  into  the  back- 
ground, this  time  by  the  outbreak  of  the  Great  War.2 

1  The  text  of  this  measure  is  printed  in  Rev.  du  Droit  Public,  July-Sept.,  191 2. 
See  B.  Laverge,  "La  reforme  electorate  jugee  au  point  de  vue  de  ses  resultats  statis- 
tiques,"  in  Rev.  Polit.  et  Pari.,  Jan.,  1913;  G.  Lachapelle,  "La  reforme  electorale 
devant  le  Senat,"  in  Rev.  Polit.  et  Par!.,  Mar.  10,  1913  ;  G.  Gidel,  "La  reforme  elec- 
torale en  France  et  en  Belgique,"  in  Rev.  des  Sci.  Polit.,  July-Aug.,  1913. 

2  The  literature  of  the  movement  for  electoral  reform  up  to  1914  is  voluminous. 
Some  of  the  best  books  are  C.  Benoist,  Pour  la  reforme  electorale  (Paris,  1908) ;  J. 
L.  Chardon,  La  reforme  electorale  en  France  (Paris,  1910) ;  J.  L.  Breton,  La  reforme 
electorale  (Paris,  1910) ;  'H.  Leyret,  La  tyrannie  des  politiciens  (Paris,  1910) ; 
Fouillee,  La  democratic  politique  et  sociale  en  France  (Paris,  1910) ;  and  T.  Petitiean, 
La  representation  proportionnelle  devant  les  chambres  francaises  (Paris,  1915).  The 
best  brief  survey  in  English  is  J.  W.  Garner,  "Electoral  Reform  in  France,"  in  Amer. 
Polit.  Sci.  Rev.,  Nov.  1913.  Other  magazine  articles  include:  F.  Faure,  "La 
legislature  qui  finit  et  la  reforme  electorale,"  in  Rev.  Polit.  et  Pari.,  Dec.  10,  1909; 
Marion,  "Comment  faire  la  reforme  electorale,"  ibid.,  Feb.  10  and  Mar.  10,  1910; 
M.  Deslanders,  "La  reforme  electorale,"  ibid.,  July  10,  1910;  A.  Varenne,  "La 
reforme  electorale  d'abord,"  ibid.,  Nov.  10,  1910;  G.  Lachapelle,  "La  discussion 
du  projet  de  reforme  electorale,"  ibid.,  May  10,  1912;  F.  Faure,  "Le  vote  de  la 
reforme  electorale,"  ibid.,  Aug.  10,  191 2  ;  L.  Milhac,  "Les  partis  politiques  francais 
dans  leur  programme  et  devant  le  suffrage,"  in  Ann.  des  Sci.  Polit.,  July  15,  1910; 
G.  Scelle,  "La  representation  politique,"  in  Rev.  du  Droit  Public,  July-Sept.,  191 1. 
On  the  question  of  proportional  representation  see  G.  Tronqual,  La  representation 
proportionnelle  devant  le  parlement  francais  (Poitiers,  1910) ;  F.  Lepine,  La  rcprisoi- 
tation  proportionnelle  et  sa  solution  (Paris,  191 1) ;  [N.  Saripolos,  La  democratic  et 
Selection  proportionnelle  (Paris,   1900) ;    G.  Lachapelle,  La  representation  propor- 


424  G0\  ERNMEN  l>  OF   EUROP1 

The  Electoral  Law  of  1919.  The  situation  of  France  was 
unlike  that  of  Great  Britain  in  that  whereas  the  latter  country 

was  within  a  war  and  a  half  of  a  national  election  when  the  war 
came  on,  the  former  had  a  parliament  which  had  bul  barely 
received  its  mandate.  From  December,  [915,  the  British  parlia 
ment  elected  in  igio  remained  operative  only  by  virtue  of  suc- 
cessive resolutions  prolonging  its  own  life;  and  it  is  not  strange 
that  as  the  years  passed  it  became  necessary  to  plan,  even 
though  in  wartime,  for  a  fresh  appeal  to  the  electorate.  The 
elei  toral  acl  which  by  common  admission  this  appeal  entailed 
was  passed  early  in  iqiS,'  although  it  fell  out  that  the  election 
was  nut  actually  held  until  after  the  armistice.  In  France,  the 
parliament  elected  in  1914  would  have  held  in  any  case  until 
the  spring  of  1918,  and  the  extension  of  its  life  by  the  few  months 
necessary  to  carry  it  past  the  armistice  involved  no  serious  ques- 
tion of  public  policy.  A  war-time  election  was,  therefore,  never 
imminent,  and  electoral  legislation  could  easily  be  allowed  to 
lie  over. 

Promptly  after  the  armistice,  however,  a  national  election 
began  to  loom  up ;  and,  as  had  been  the  case  in  Great  Britain,  a 
necessary  preliminary  seemed  to  most  people  to  be  a  new  elec- 
toral law.2  There  was,  to  a  degree,  the  same  necessity  of  adapt- 
ing the  electoral  system  to  an  electorate  profoundly  altered  by  the 
war;  there  were,  also  as  beyond  the  Channel,  great  electoral 
policies  to  be  determined  which  had  been  agitating  the  nation 
for  years  before  1914.  The  upshot  was  the  appearance  of  a 
comprehensive  electoral  bill,  the  "  proposition  Dessoye,"  which 
after  some  weeks  of  debate  passed  the  Chamber  of  Deputies, 
April  18,  1919,  by  a  vote  of  277  to  [38.  There  was  a  strong 
current  of  opposition  in  the  Senate,  but  the  measure,  somewhat 
amended,  was  passed  by  that  body,  June  26,  by  a  vote  of  134  to 
87.  Rather  than  prolong  the  discussion,  the  Chamber  accepted 
the  bill,  July  8,  by  a  vote  of  328  to  [03  (71  not  voting)  as  the 
upper  house  had  passed  it,  and  four  days  later  the  act  was  duly 
promulgated.  Clemenceau,  who  at  the  time  was  premier,  did 
not  personally  favor  the  changes  which  the  statute  provided  for, 
but  he  did   not  publicly  oppose  them.     Had   he  done  so,   the 

tionnelle  (Paris,  1910) ;  ibid.,  " Representation  proportionnelle,"  in  Rev.  de  Paris, 
Nov.  15,  iqio;  ibtd.,  "L' Application  de  In  representation  proportionnelle,"  in  Rev. 
Polit.  et  Purl.,  Dec.  10,  1910.  Proportional  representation  in  relation  to  France 
is  fully  discussed  in  a  report  of  the  British  Roj  al  ( lommission  on  Electoral  Systems 
(iqio).     Report,  Cd.  5163;    Evidence,  Cd.  5352. 

1  See  p.  1 

2  M.  Malzac,  "Vers  la  relorme  ete<  torale,"  in  Rev.  Polit.  et  Pari.,  May,  1919. 


THE   STRUCTURE  OF  PARLIAMENT  425 

adoption  of  the  measure  would,  under  the  principles  of  the 
cabinet  system,  have  entailed  his  resignation. 

The  most  notable  features  of  the  new  law  were  the  revival  of 
scrutin  de  listc  and  the  adoption  of  a  limited  form  of  proportional 
representation.1  The  department  again  became  the  electoral 
area;  every  such  division  is  entitled  to  one  deputy  for  every 
seventy-five  thousand  inhabitants  and  major  fraction  thereof, 
with  a  minimum  of  three.  However,  it  was  stipulated  that 
ultimately  every  department  electing  more  than  six  deputies 
should  be  divided  into  circumscriptions  electing  from  three  to  six 
each.  The  law,  therefore,  contemplated  a  restricted  list  system, 
which  may  be  thought  of  as  a  compromise  between  scrutin 
uninominal  and  voting  by  large  departmental  lists  carrying 
candidates  for  a  dozen  or  more  seats.  Lists  must  be  deposited 
with  the  prefect  of  the  department  at  least  five  days  before  the 
election,  and  each  candidacy  must  be  supported  by  the  signatures 
of  at  least  one  hundred  electors  living  within  the  department. 
No  list  may  contain  names  in  excess  of  the  number  of  seats  to 
be  filled ;  and  every  isolated  candidate  is  considered  as  forming  a 
separate  list.  All  lists  must  be  posted  at  the  voting  places  two 
days  before  the  election ;  and  an  elector  may  vote  for  a  list  as 
it  stands  on  the  printed  ballot  or  he  may  cross  off  names  and 
write  in  others  drawn  from  the  other  lists. 

The  method  of  determining  the  results  of  the  balloting  in  a 
constituency  is  somewhat  complicated,  but  the  essentials  of  it 
can  be  stated  as  follows  :  (1)  all  candidates  voted  for  on  an  abso- 
lute majority  of  the  ballots  cast  (after  unmarked  or  incorrectly 
marked  ballots  have  been  thrown  out)  are  declared  elected,  up 
to  the  number  of  seats  to  be  filled ;  (2)  if  seats  remain,  they  are 
apportioned  by  applying  (a)  an  "  electoral  quotient,"  which  is 
obtained  by  dividing  the  whole  number  of  ballots  cast  by  the 
total  number  of  seats  to  be  filled,  and  (b)  a  series  of  "  averages," 
obtained  —  one  for  each  list  —  by  dividing  the  total  number  of 
votes  cast  for  all  candidates  on  the  list  by  the  number  of  candi- 
dates on  that  list ;  (3)  each  list  receives  seats  (is  so  far  as  any 
remain  to  be  assigned)  according  to  the  number  of  times  that  the 
electoral  quotient  is  contained  in  its  average ;  (4)  in  each  list 
seats  are  allotted  to  candidates  in  the  order  of  the  vote  they  have 
received,  in  case  of  a  tie  the  older  candidate  getting  the  seat; 
(5)  no  candidate  may  be  declared  elected  unless  his  vote  exceeds 

1  The  law  was  made  applicable  to  Algeria  and  the  colonies,  as  well  as  to  all  of 
France  as  constituted  before  the  war ;  Belfort  and  Alsace-Lorraine  were  to  be  pro- 
vided for  in  a  supplementary  measure. 


GOVERNMENTS  01    EUROPE 

one  ball  of  the  average  of  the  list  to  which  be  belongs;  (6)  if 
the  number  of  ballot  not  greater  than  one  half  of  the 

number  of  registered  voters,  or  it"  no  List  obtains  a  total  number 
oi  votes  equal  to  the  electoral  quotient,  a  second  balloting 
takes  place  two  weeks  later;  and  it'  no  list  now  obtains  the  elec- 
toral quotient,  the  scats  are  assigned  to  the  general  body  of  can- 
didates in  the  order  of  the  vote  they  have  received.  The  object 
of  this  last  provision  is  to  abate  in  some  measure  the  nuisance 
which  the  ballottage  had  come  to  be  under  the  former  system. 

The  actual  working  of  the  proportional  principle  will  be 
clarified  by  considering  a  hypothetical  case.  Suppose  that  in  a 
department  which  elects  six  deputies  the  number  of  ballots  cast 
is  60.240.  If  these  ballots  were  cast  solidly  for  one  group,  or 
"  list,"  of  six  candidates,  the  number  of  votes  individually  re- 
ceived by  the  members  of  the  group  would  be  60,240X6  = 
361,440.  But  this,  of  course,  will  not  happen.  Many  ballots 
will  be  cast  for  other  lists,  and  many  more  will  be  cast  for  mixed 
groups  drawn  by  the  voter  from  the  various  lists.  Suppose, 
then,  that  the  votes  are  distributed  among  four  lists  as  follows : 

List  A  List  H 

Jean 32,645  Emest 18,125 

Henri 29,827  Hippolyte 16,247 

Eustache 29,640  Arsenc 15,822 

Theophile 25,274  David 12,659 

Yves 18,401  Celestin 8,404 

Georges 12,524  rirmin 4,031 

Total 148,311  Total 75,286 

Average 24,718  Average 12,547 

List  C  List  D 

Arthur 15,247      Gaston 5,164 

14,629       Emile 4,032 

Raymond 12,172       Alexandre 3,292 

Eug&ne 8,624      Pierre 1,123 

Prosper 6,018       Paul 1,1 19 

Gustave 5>ioi       Alphonse 1,082 

Total 61,791  Total     . 15,812 

Average 10,298  Average 2,635 

Quotient :  60,240  -5-  6  =  10,040 

On  looking  over  these  figures.1  it  is  seen  that  one  candidate, 
and  only  one  (Jean),  has  been  voted  for  on  a  majority  of  all 
ballots  cast ;  hence  he  is  elected.     The  other  five  seats  will  have 

1  The  figures  are  selected  with  a  view  to  easy  visualisation  of  the  workings  of 
tem.     It  should  not  lie  inferred  that  the  lists  are  likely  to  be  "scratched" 
to  such  an  extent  as  in  the  I  ,iple  given. 


THE  STRUCTURE   OF   PARLIAMENT  427 

to  be  filled,  as  far  as  proves  possible,  by  applying  the  electoral 
quotient.  Dividing  this  quotient  into  the  list  averages,  it  is 
found  that  List  A  is  entitled  to  two  more  seats,  Lists  B  and  C  to 
one  seat  each,  and  List  D  to  none.  Henri,  Eustache,  Ernest, 
and  Arthur  are,  therefore,  elected.  There  is  still  one  seat  to  be 
tilled,  and  the  law  provides  that  in  such  a  case  it  shall  go  to  the 
list  having  the  highest  average  —  provided  there  is  still  a  candi- 
date on  that  list  whose  individual  vote  is  more  than  half  of  the 
list  average;  otherwise  the  seat  goes  to  the  list  with  the  next 
highest  average,  on  the  same  condition.  Theophile,  therefore, 
becomes  the  sixth  deputy. 

Although  the  object  of  proportional  representation  is  always 
to  secure  the  representation  of  minorities,  the  principle  can  be 
applied  in  widely  differing  ways.  The  system  most  in  the  minds 
of  the  authors  of  the  French  law  was  that  employed  in  the  elec- 
tion of  members  of  the  two  chambers  of  the  Belgian  parliament  j1 
although  certain  departures  were  made  from  that  system  in  the 
hope  of  improving  upon  it.  The  French  plan,  like  the  Belgian, 
is  fundamentally  the  list  system,  originally  devised  by  Victor 
d'FIondt,  of  the  University  of  Ghent.  Unlike  the  cumulative 
plan,  employed  in  the  election  of  members  of  the  legislative 
council  in  the  province  of  Good  Hope,  it  does  not  permit  the 
elector  to  give  more  than  one  vote  to  a  candidate.  Unlike  the 
plan  propounded  by  the  Englishman  Hare  in  1859,  indorsed  by 
John  Stuart  Mill,2  and  used  to-day  in  Switzerland,  Norway,  and 
elsewhere,  it  does  not  allow  him  to  indicate  his  second  and  third 
choices,  for  he  can  vote  for  only  as  many  candidates  as  are  to  be 
elected ;  hence  it  it  is  not  a  preferential  system.  But  the  plan 
has  many  acknowledged  advantages,  e.g.,  simplicity,  adapt- 
ability to  large  constituencies,  and  easy  compatibility  with  the 
Australian  ballot,  and  it  has  won  most  general  approval  through- 
out the  world.  Its  results  in  France  can  be  judged  only  after  an 
extended  period  of  trial.3 

1  For  brief  accounts  of  the  Belgian  system  see  Ogg,  Governments  of  Europe 
(1st  ed.),  542-545;  J.  Humphreys,  "Proportional  Representation  in  Belgium," 
in  Contemp.  Rev.,  Oct.,  1908.  The  subject  is  more  fully  considered  in  Humphreys, 
Proportional  Representation;  and  it  is  discussed  in  relation  to  the  French  movement 
in  G.  Lachapelle,  La  representation  proportionnelle  en  France  et  en  Belgique  (Paris, 
1911). 

2  Representative  Government,  136;   Lecky,  Democracy  and  Liberty,  I,  223-225. 

3  The  text  of  the  French  law  of  1919  is  printed  in  Rev.  Polit.  et  Pari.,  Aug.  1919, 
pp.  205-207.  There  is  a  good  exposition  in  G.  Lachapelle,  Les  elections  generates 
du  16  novembrc  iqiq  (Paris,  1920).  On  the  various  forms  of  proportional  represen- 
tation see  Garner,  Introduction  to  Political  Science,  458-469. 


CHAPTER  XXIV 

THE   PARLIAMENTARY   SYSTEM 

Sessions  of  the  Chambers.  —  The  author-  of  the  constitution 
of  1875  believed  that  it  would  be  dangerous  to  establish  the  seat 
of  the  Hew  government  in  Paris.  The  Commune  was  fresh  in 
their  memory  ;  they  were  impressed  by  the  decision  of  the  United 
Mates  to  locate  its  capital  outside  of  the  principal  centers  of 
population;  and  far  from  agreeing  with  Robespierre  that  a 
legislature  ought  to  deliberate  under  the  eye  of  the  greatest  pos- 
sible number  of  citizens,  they  considered  that  such  a  body 
should  carry  on  its  work  in  entire  freedom  from  influences  spring- 
ing from  its  immediate  environment.  Consequently  they  wrote 
into  the  constitutional  law  of  February  25,  1875,  the  stipulation 
that  the  seat  of  the  executive  power  and  of  the  chambers  should 
be  Versailles.1  A  few  years  of  experience  showed,  however,  that 
this  precaution  was  unnecessary  and  that  it  entailed  certain 
distinct  disadvantages.  Tendencies  to  disorder  in  Paris  steadily 
diminished.  Furthermore,  no  city  could  ever  displace  the  metrop- 
olis as  the  historic  and  natural  head  and  center  of  the  nation. 
In  addition,  the  ministers  found  it  irksome  to  go  back  and  forth 
incessantly  between  Versailles  and  the  offices  from  which  the 
work  of  administration  was  directed,  these  offices  having  never 
been  removed  from  Paris.  Hence,  in  June,  1879,  the  article 
which  fixed  the  seat  of  government  at  Versailles  was  rescinded, 
and  three  weeks  later  a  statute  transferred  both  the  executive 
power  and  the  chambers  to  Paris.2  From  that  day,  the  sessions 
of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  have  1  teen  held  in  the  Palais  Bourbon, 
a  structure  dating  from  the  eighteenth  century,  and  situated  in 
the  neighborhood  of  a  group  of  ministerial  buildings  at  the  end  of 
the  Boulevard  St.  Germain,  directly  across  the  Seine  from  the 
Place  de  la  Concorde;  those  of  the  Senate  have  been  held  in  the 
Palais  de  Luxembourg,  the  historic  seat  of  French  upper  chambers 
since  the  Revolution,  and  located  in  the  Rue  de  Vaugirard, 
facing  the  Luxembourg  garden. 

The    frequency   and    duration   of   parliamentary   sessions  are 

1  \n.   ,.     Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  I.  288. 
uil  et  Monnier,  Les  constitutions,  336-337. 
428 


THE  PARLIAMENTARY   SYSTEM  429 

regulated  partly  by  the  constitution,  partly  by  the  chambers 
themselves,  and  partly  by  the  president  of  the  republic,  or  at 
all  events  by  the  ministers  acting  in  his  name.  The  constitu- 
tional law  of  July  16,  1875,  requires  that  the  chambers  shall 
assemble  annually  on  the  second  Tuesday  of  January,  unless 
convened  at  an  earlier  date  by  the  president  of  the  republic ; 
that  they  shall  continue  in  session  through  at  least  five  months  of 
each  year ;  and  that  the  sessions  of  the  two  houses  shall  always 
begin  and  end  at  the  same  time.1  The  second  of  these  require- 
ments does  not  mean  that  the  chambers  must  actually  sit  for 
five  months,  whether  or  not  public  business  demands.  It  means, 
rather,  that  they  have  a  constitutional  right  to  be  in  session 
during  at  least  that  portion  of  every  year,  and  that  the  president 
cannot  use  his  power  of  adjournment  to  deny  them  this  right. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  are  in  session  throughout  the  entire 
year,  save  during  a  somewhat  extended  vacation  in  the  summer 
and  two  or  three  brief  recesses  at  other  seasons.  The  chambers 
have  no  independent  power  to  terminate  their  sessions ;  but  they 
can  vote  to  take  a  recess,  and  they  can  cause  an  extraordinary 
session  to  be  called  if  a  majority  of  the  members  of  both  bodies 
present  a  request  to  the  president  of  the  republic  to  that  effect. 
Regular  sessions  are  announced  by  letters  of  convocation  sent 
to  members  by  the  presidents  of  the  two  chambers  (although  they 
would  take  place  automatically  without  call)  ;  but  the  president 
of  the  republic  convokes  all  extraordinary  sessions,  closes  all  ses- 
sions, and  also  adjourns  the  chambers,  subject  to  the  limitation 
mentioned  above,  and  to  the  further  restriction  that  he  may  not 
adjourn  them  more  than  twice  during  the  same  session,  and  never 
to  exceed  one  month.  Adjournment  is  to  a  definite  date.  The 
power  to  prorogue,  i.e.,  to  suspend  the  sittings  for  an  indefinite 
period,  does  not  exist.  Finally,  the  president  of  the  republic  has 
the  power  to  dissolve  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  with  the  consent 
of  the  Senate  —  a  right  which,  however,  has  been  exercised  only 
once,  i.e.,  in  1877. 2 

1  Art.  1.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I,  290-291.  With  a  view  to  providing 
for  an  awkward  contingency,  the  constitution  stipulates  that  if,  at  a  time  when  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies  has  been  dissolved,  the  presidency  falls  vacant,  the  Senate 
shall  immediately  come  into  session  alone  (law  of  July  16,  1875,  Art.  3).  In  such  a 
case,  the  council' of  ministers  would  act  as  chief  executive  until  a  new  chamber  was 
chosen  and  a  new  president  elected,  and  it  would  be  responsible  to  the  Senate  for 
its  acts.  The  Senate  also  sits  independently  when  convened  as  a  high  court  of 
justice.     See  p.  463. 

2  See  p.  445.  On  the  regulation  of  the  sessions  of  the  chambers  see  Duguit, 
Manuel  de  droit  constitutionnel  (2d  ed.),  343-348,  and  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit 
constitutional  (4th  ed.),  607-622. 


430  GOVERNMEN  1>   01     El  ROPE 

Only  slowly  and  grudgingly,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  did  tlir 
English  Parliament  adopt  the  principle  of  publicity  of  proceed- 
ings, whether  as  applied  to  the  attendance  of  spectators  at  the 
sittings  or  to  the  publication  of  debates.1  Since  [789,  full 
Legislative  publicity  lias,  however,  been  repeatedly  proclaimed  in 
France  as  an  essential  guarantee  of  political  liberty;  and  tin- 
constitutional  law  of  July  16,  1875,  provides  that  the  sittings  of 
the  chambers  shall  be  public,  while  yet  allowing  the  doors  to  be 
closed  in  cither  house  if,  on  request  of  a  specified  number  of  mem- 
bers, a  proposal  to  that  effect  i.->  carried  by  an  absolute  majority. 
The  number  of  members  necessary  to  make  this  request  has  been 
fixed  by  law  at  five  in  the  Senate  and  twenty  in  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies.  The  power,  however,  has  fallen  into  almost  total 
disuse.  The  public  is  admitted  as  long  as  there  are  vacant  seats 
in  the  galleries,  and  the  publication  of  reports  of  debates  by  the 
press  is  practically  unrestricted. 

Status  of  Members.  —  Under  the  French  theory  of  representa- 
tion, the  nation  expresses  its  will  through  the  electorate,  the 
elected  chambers  become  the  organ  of  the  sovereign  people,  and 
every  deputy  and  senator  represents  this  national  >o\ereignty  as 
a  whole,  and  not  merely  his  own  constituency.  One  of  the  prin- 
cipal arguments  which  led,  in  [919,  to  the  substitution  of  the  de- 
partment for  the  arrondisscmcut  as  the  electoral  area  was  that 
the  member  chosen  from  the  smaller  district  was  too  apt  to  lose 
sight  of  his  obligation  to  view  public  questions  in  a  broadly  na- 
tional, rather  than  in  a  narrowly  local,  way.  As  in  the  United 
States,  each  house  is  judge  of  the  qualifications  of  its  members ; 
and  each  has  complete  control  over  the  continuance  of  a  member 
in  its  ranks  during  the  full  period  for  which  he  has  been  chosen. 
If  a  member  desires  to  resign,  he  can  do  so  only  with  the  permis- 
sion of  the  chamber  to  which  he  belongs  ;  if  he  loses  his  civil  rights 
or  otherwise  becomes  disqualified,  it  is  for  that  chamber  to  say 
when  he  shall  retire,  and  indeed  whether  he  shall  retire  at  all ; 
and  the  chamber  may  expel  him  for  reasons  that  seem  to  it  suf- 
ficient, regardless  of  his  qualifications.  One  must  hasten  to 
add,  however,  that  a  member  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  who 
accepts  a  salaried  public  position  automatically  vacates  his  seat, 
although  he  may  be  reelected  thereto  if  the  office  which  he  has 
taken  is  compatible  with  membership.  Salaried  positions  are, 
in  general,  not  compatible.  But  exception  is  made  in  favor  of 
deputies  who  become  ministers  or  under-secretaries  ;  indeed,  they 
are  not  required,  as  are  members  of  the  English  House  of  Com- 

1  See  p.  200. 


THE  PARLIAMENTARY  SYSTEM  431 

mons  in  a  similar  case,  to  stand  for  reelection.  Curiously,  and 
unfortunately,  the  general  rule  against  holding  a  salaried  public 
office  simultaneously  with  a  parliamentary  mandate  does  not 
apply  to  the  Senate.1 

An  important  rule  of  representative  government  which  passed 
from  England  to  the  continent  is  that  the  members  of  the  legis- 
lature shall  enjoy,  within  the  legislative  halls,  entire  freedom  of 
speech^  voting,  and  procedure.2    A  guarantee  of  this  nature  was 
placed  in  the  French  constitution  of  1791,  and  throughout  the 
transmutations  of  later  years  a  similar  provision  was  always  to 
be  found,  either  in  the  constitution  or  in  a  statute.     The  constitu- 
tion of  1875  says :  "No  member  of  either  chamber  shall  be  prose- 
cuted or  held  responsible  on  account  of  any  opinions  expressed  or 
votes  cast  by  him  in  the  performance  of  his  duties."3    The 
responsibility  from  which  the  member  is  thus  relieved  is,  of  course, 
legal  rather  than  political ;  the  provision  amounts  to  a  suspension 
of  the  penal  law,  in  so  far  as  that  law  would  be  applicable  to  words 
spoken  or  acts  committed  by  the  deputy  or  senator  in  the  exer- 
cise of  his  mandate.     In  another  direction,  immunity,  however, 
goes  still  farther ;    for  the  constitution  adds :    "No  member  of 
either  chamber jhaU,  during  the  session,  be  prosecuted  or  arrested 
for  ajry^^nme  or  misdemeanor,  except  upon  the  authority  of 
the  chamber  of  which  he  is  a  member,  unless  he  be  taken  in  the 
very  act.     The  detention  or  prosecution  of  a  member  of  either 
chamber  shall  be  suspended  for  the  session,  and  for  the  entire 
term  of  the  chamber,  if  the  chamber  requires  it."  4     The  object 
of  this  provision  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  foregoing  clause, 
namely,  to  give  members  a  maximum  of  independence  and  of 
security  against  interference,  intimidation,  and  other  forms  of 
political  persecution.     For  the  sake  of  the  larger  interests  of  the 
state,  which  can  be  best  served  by  a  free  and  fearless  legislature, 
members  are  shielded  during  sessions  against  the  normal  opera- 
tion of  the  penal  law,  except  in  so  far  as  the  chamber  to  which 
they  belong  is  willing  that  they  shall  be  proceeded  against.     Un- 
der the  country's  earlier  republican  constitutions  this  immunity 
was  continuous  during  membership,  but  in  its  present  form  it 
lapses  between  sessions.     Finally,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  im- 

xLaw  on  the  Election  of  Deputies   (November  30,    1875),   Art.   n.     Dodd, 
Modern  Constitutions,  I,  305.     See  Duguit,  Manuel  de  droit  constilulionncl  (2d  ed.), 

2  This  immunity  was  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Bill  of  Rights  of  1689.     See  p. 

3  Law  of  July  16,  1875,  Art.  x3-     Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  I,  293. 

4  Ibid.,  Art.  14.     Dodd,  op.  cit.,  I,  293-294. 


GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

munity  extends  only  to  crimes  and  misdemeanors  (crimes  rl 
delUs),  not  to  contraventions  of  police  regulations;  also  thai 
there  is  no  Immunity  at  all  if  the  member's  guilt  is  so  dearly 
established  that  the  law  ran  1><-  allowed  to  take  is  « ourse 
without  any  suspicion  that  he  is  being  made  the  victim  of 
persecution.1 

It  has  been  explained  that  in  England  it  was  long  customary  for 
onstituents  of  a  member  of  the  House  of  Commons  to  reim- 
burse him  for  the  expenses  which  hi-  incurred  in  attending  parlia- 
mentary session^  as  their  representative.2  Up  to  the  eighteenth 
century  a  similar  practice  prevailed  in  France;  each  order 
nobility,  clergy,  and  tiers  etat  made  such  provision  as  it  chose 
for  the  expenses  of  its  delegates  in  the  Estates  General.  The 
Revolution  gave  birth,  however,  to  tin-  doctrine  that  members 
of  the  national  legislative  body  or  bodies  should  be  indemnified 
out  of  the  national  treasury,  in  order  that  parliamentary  scat. 
should  be  equally  accessible  to  all.  Provision  of  this  charai  ter 
was  made  in  the  constitution  of  1795;  and,  except  during  the 
period  1817-48,  the  rule  has  been  adhered  to  without  interrup- 
tion.3 The  constitutional  laws  of  1875  are  silent  on  the  subject. 
Hut  the  organic  law  of  August  2,  i <S 7  =; .  provided  that  senators 
should  receive  the  same  emolument  as  deputies,  and  the  law 
of  November  30  on  the  election  of  deputies  fixed  this  sum 
at  nine  thousand  francs  a  year.  In  1906  the  amount  was  raised 
to  fifteen  thousand  francs.  In  addition,  members  are  entitled, 
on  payment  of  a  nominal  sum,  to  travel  free  on  all  French  rail- 
ways.4 

Organization  and  Procedure.  —  At  the  opening  of  each  reg- 
ular session,  whether  or  not  of  a  new  parliament,  each  chamber 
elects  its  "bureau  "  and  adopts  its  rules  of  procedure  for  the 
coming  year.5  The  bureau  is  the  staff  of  officers  which  will  have 
charge  of  the  chamber's  affairs  during  the  year.  Tts  composition 
is  regulated^  not  by  the  constitution,  nor  yet  by  law,  but  by  rules 
adopted  by  each  chamber  to  meet  its  own  needs;  but  in  both 
1  ases  it  consists  of  a  president,  one  or  more  vice-presidents,  sev- 
eral secretaries  and  a  number  of  questors.  All  are  elected  from 
the  membership  of  the  chamber  by  secrel    ballot  ;    the  vice- 

'  On  parliamentary  immunitie  ei  I  mein,  Elements  de.  droit  conslUutionnel 
!  Uli  ed.),  803-816;    Duguit,  Manuel  de  droit  constituUannel  1  sd  ed.),  338  343. 

p.  17.V 
li  is  true  that  the  constitution  of  1852  cut  ofl  all  stipends.     Hut  a  senatus- 
consulte  of  the  same  year  restored  them. 

mein,  Elements  de  droit  constUulionnel  (4th  ed.  I,  81;    S20. 
■">  Law  of  July  16,  1875,  Art.  n.      Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  I,  293. 


THE   PARLIAMENTARY   SYSTEM  433 

presidents,  secretaries,  and  questors  are  chosen  by  scrutin  de 
liste;  and  all  are  indefinitely  reeligible.  There  have  usually 
been  in  each  chamber  four  vice-presidents,  six  or  eight  secre- 
taries, and  three  questors. 

Collectively,  the  bureau  exercises  a  few  minor  functions ; 
it  decides  certain  questions  relating  to  procedure,  and  it  appoints 
the  force  of  employees  —  stenographers,  clerks,  librarians,  door- 
keepers, and  others  —  who  discharge  the  routine  duties  incident  to 
the  work  of  a  legislative  body.  But  most  of  the  bureau's  func- 
tions appertain  to  each  group  of  officers  separately.  Some  one 
of  the  vice-presidents  replaces  the  president  whenever  the  latter 
is  absent,  or  in  case  of  his  death  or  resignation.  The  secretaries 
(of  whom  at  least  four  must  be  on  duty  whenever  the  chamber  is 
in  session)  supervise  the  preparation  of  the  records  of  the  secre- 
taires-redacteurs  and  count  the  votes  when  there  is  a  division. 
The  questors  have  charge  of  accounts,  payments,  and  other  fiscal 
matters  connected  with  the  chamber's  organization  and  work. 
The  vice-presidents  and  secretaries  receive  no  pay  as  such,  but 
the  questors  are  allowed  double  the  salary  of  the  ordinary  mem- 
ber. 

The  most  important  officer  is,  of  course,  the  president.  In- 
deed, the  president  of  the  Senate  ranks  next  to  the  president  of 
the  republic,  and  the  president  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  ranks 
thirjir  among  the  dignitaries  of  state ;  it  is  these  men,  as  we  have 
seen,  that  are  first  summoned  to  the  Elysee  to  give  information 
and  advice  when  a  new  prime  minister  is  to  be  appointed.  The 
powers  and  duties  of  the  president  are  regulated  partly  by  law, 
partly  by  the  rules  of  the  house  over  which  he  presides ;  and  they 
are  substantially  identical  in  the  two  chambers.  Stated  briefly, 
the  president  occupies  the  chair  during  debate,  recognizes 
claimants  to  the  floor,  puts  motions,  and  announces  the  results 
of  votes.  He  signs  the  reports  of  the  chamber's  proceedings. 
He  receives  petitions,  reports,  memorials,  and  other  documents 
addressed  to  the  chamber.  He  represents  the  chamber,  not  only 
on  ceremonial  occasions,  but  in  its  dealings  with  the  other  cham- 
ber and  with  the  executive  authorities.  He  can  take  whatever 
steps  are  necessary  to  maintain  order  and  to  protect  the  independ- 
ence of  the  chamber,  even  to  the  extent  of  calling  upon  the  gov- 
ernment for  armed  forces.  Unlike  the  Speaker  of  the  English 
House  of  Commons,  he  is  not  restricted  within  the  chamber  to 
the  functions  of  a  mere  moderator.  He  is  expected  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  his  office  impartially,  but  there  is  nothing  to  prevent 
him  from  quitting  the  chair  to  participate  in  debate.     His  posi- 


434  GOYI.kWII  \  rS  01    El  ROPE 

tion,  therefore,  bears  an  interesting  resemblance  to  that  of  the 
Speaker  of  the  American  House  of  Representativi 

The  "  bureau,"  as  thus  described,  is  unlike  anything  to  be 
found  iu  parliamentary  organization  in  the  English-speaking 
world.  But  the  idea  of  the  bureau  finds  another  application  which 
differentiates  French  parliamentary  organization  still  further 
from  English  and  American  usage.  At  the  meetings  of  the  old 
Estates  General  the  various  orders  were  accustomed  to  divide 
their  members  by  lot  into  sections,  or  bureaux,  which  consider''' 
proposals  in  a  preliminary  way  before  they  were  submitted  to 
general  deliberation.-  The  practice  was  revived  by  the  constitu- 
tion of  1814,  and  since  that  date  it  has  been  a  continuous  and  es- 
sential feature  of  parliamentary  procedure  not  only  in  France 
but,  to  a  large  extent,  in  other  continental  countries  -  including 
Italy,  Belgium,  and  Germany  —  whose  systems  of  government 
have  been  deeply  influenced  by  French  usages  and  ideas.  Under 
rules  which  were  formulated  in  1876  on  the  model  of  the  rules  of 
the  National  Assembly  of  1848,  the  membership  of  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies  is  divided  into  eleven  bureaus,  of  about  hfry-seven 
members  each  and  that  of  the  Senate  into  nine  bureaus,  of  thirty- 
three  or  thirty-four  members  each.  This  division  is  made  by 
lot  at  the  beginning  of  each  session,  and  a  new  distribution  takes 
place  every  month  while  the  session  lasts.  Each  bureau  names  its 
own  president  and  secretary,  and  meetings  are  called  by  the 
president  whenever  deemed  necessary. 

At  the  opening  of  a  new  parliament,  the  bureaus  examine  the 
credentials  of  members,  preparatory  to  a  final  validation  by  the 
chamber.  Aside  from  this,  their  function  relates  chiefly  to  the 
preliminary  consideration  of  bills  and  of  other  proposals  sub- 
mitted to  the  chamber.     Originally,  the  bureaus  performed  this 

vice  directly;  a  bill,  upon  being  introduced,  was  sent  to  the 
bureaus,  which  examined  it  before  the  general  debate  on  the  floor 
of  the  chamber  began.  But  the  haphazard  compo>ition  and  the 
changeableness  of  the  bureaus  were  serious  impediments,  and 
gradually  it  became  the  custom  to  delegate  the  intensive  examina- 

>n  of  measures  to  other  groups,  known  as  commissions,  i.e., 
committees,  -elected  to  represent  the  whole  number  of  bureaus. 
I'nder  this  practice,  a  bureau,  upon  receiving  a  bill  or  other  pro- 
posal, would  briefly  discuss  the  general  principles  involved,  and 
then  would  choose  by  ballot  one  of  its  members  who.  with  repre- 

1  Bodley,  France,  II,  194-209;  Esmein,  tUments  de  droll  coiisiiliUionnel  (4th 
ed.),  786-789. 

-  The  French  ecclesiastical  assemblies  had  a  similar  practice. 


THE  PARLIAMENTARY  SYSTEM  435 

sentatives  similarly  selected  by  the  other  ten  bureaus,  would  form 
a  committee  for  the  more  detailed  scrutiny  of  the  proposal.  In 
the  case  of  a  very  important  measure,  the  chamber  might  instruct 
the  bureaus  to  designate  two,  or  even  three,  representatives ;  so 
that  committees  regularly  consisted  of  eleven  members  (nine  in 
the  Senate)  or  some  multiple  thereof.  Committees,  furthermore, 
were  "special,  in  that  they  could  consider  only  the  particular 
matter  referred  to  them;  and  they  were  temporary,  in  that 
they  went  out  of  existence  whenever  that  matter  was  disposed 
of. 

The  Senate  has  steadily  adhered  to  this  method  of  handling 
its  business.  The  plan,  however,  has  many  obvious  disad- 
vantages. It  prevents  prolonged  and  systematic  committee 
investigations  of  important  bills  or  subjects.  It  interferes  with 
the  operation  of  the  cabinet  system  by  putting  the  composition 
of  committees  practically  beyond  the  control  of  the  ministers. 
It  contributes  to  ministerial  instability  by  leading  to  irresponsible 
amendment  of  government  bills  in  such  ways  that  the  government 
may  find  itself  obliged  to  turn  against  its  own  measures  or  resign. 
All  of  this  is  not  so  serious  in  the  Senate.  But  in  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies,  where  the  chief  burden  of  legislative  work  falls, 
it  long  ago  became  intolerable;  and  there  important  changes 
have  been  made.  As  early  as  1882  a  standing  committee  on  the 
army  was  created  in  the  Chamber,  and  in  1890  a  similar  committee 
on  the  tariff.  Between  1894  and  1898  ten  different  standing 
committees  were  authorized  at  various  times,  and  in  the  last- 
mentioned  year  1219  projects  were  considered  by  sixteen  standing 
committees  and  137  by  seventy-one  special  committees.1  The 
standing-eommittee  as  an  agency  to  consider  certain  classes  of 
legislation,  rather  than  to  discuss  specific  bills,  had  thus,  clearly 
established  itself;  and  in  1902  the  rules  were  revised  so  as  to 
provide  for  sixteen  such  committees,  of  thirty-three  members 
each,  chosen  by  the  bureaus  (three  members  from  each)  for  the 
duration  of  a  parliament.  Special  committees  of  the  earlier  sort 
might  still  be  utilized  whenever  the  Chamber  desired.  Finally, 
in  19 10,  a  further  revision  of  the  rules  provided  for  the  elec- 
tion of  the  members  of  the  standing  committees  by  the  Chamber 
itself,  under  the  principles  of  scrutin  de  liste  and  proportional 
representation.  The  number  of  members  was  raised  to  forty- 
four,  and  it  was  stipulated  that  representatives  of  the  parties 
on   each   committee   should   be    nominated   by   the   respective 

Chambre  des  Deputes,  Documents  Parlementaires,  Oct.-Dec,  1902,  p.  270. 


43C  GOVERNMENTS  ol     1. TROPE 

party  quotas  in  the  Chamber.1  With  minor  modifications,  the 
committee  system  in  this  form  is  still  in  operation. 

The   Process   of  Legislation.       The  functi( I   Parliament 

are  multifold,  bu1  they  < an  be  grouped  und<  r  three  main  head  : 
legislation,  fiscal  control,  and  supervision  of  tin-  executive  and 
administrative  Branches  of  the  government?  An  English  writer 
has  pointed  out  that,  on  account  of  the  thoroughness  of  French 
political  reconstruction  between  [789  and  [875,  together  with 
the  comprehensiveness  and  durability  of  the  Napoleonic  codes  of 
law,  the  field  of  legislation  is  distinctly  narrower  in  France  than 
in  England  and  mosl  otlar  countries.3  If,  however,  the  need  of 
legislation  has  been  in  many  directions  less  pressing  than  else- 
where, social  and  industrial  reform.-  which  the  developments  of 
the  past  forty  years  have  entailed  in  all  lands  have  imparted  a 
new  vigor  to  French  parliamentary  activity,  so  that  there  has 
been  no  perceptible  slackening  of  legislative  production;  legis- 
lation can  still  be  said  to  be  the  most  fundamental  of  parliamen- 
tary functions.  Certain  features  of  the  process  by  which  laws  are 
enacted  call  therefore  for  attention. 

In  the  absence  of  constitutional  or  statutory  restriction,  each 
chamber  adopts  by  resolution  at  the  beginning  of  a  session  the 
rules  under  which  it  proposes  to  work  during  that  session.  The 
codes  adopted  by  the  chambers  in  1876,  on  the  model  of  the  rules 
of  the  National  Assembly  of  1848,  largely  survive  ;  but  important 
modifications  and  additions  —  such  as  those  introducing  the 
standing  committee  system  in  the  lower  house  —  are  freely  made 
from  time  to  time.4 

The  constitutional  law  of  February  25,  1875,  confers  the  right 
to  initiate  legislation  upon  the  president  concurrently  with  the 
members  of  the  two  chambers.5  Measures  which  are  technically 
initiated  by  the  president  are  in  reality  originated,  as  a  rule,  by 
the  ministers.  At  all  events,  after  being  approved  by  the  conseil 
ties  ministres,  in  the  presence  of  the  president,  they  are  submitted 
to  Parliament  by  the  premier  or  some  other  minister  as  projcls 

1  M.  R.  Bonnard,  "Les  modifications  du  reglement  dc  la  Chambredes  Deputes," 
in  Rev.  du  Droit  Pub.,  Oct.-Dec.,  1911. 

-  This  takes  no  account  of  electoral  and  constituent  functions.  Bui  these  belong, 
qoI  to  Parliamenl  as  such,  but  to  the  senators  and  deputies  organized  under  a  dif- 
ferent name  and  form,  i.e.,  the  Nat  inn;,!   Assembly. 

3  Bodley,  France,  II.  213-216. 

4  On  the  subject  of  rules  see  A.  !'.  Usher,  "The  Reform  ol  Procedure  in  the 
French  Chamber  of  Deputies,"  in  Polil.  Sci.  Quar.,  Sept.,  1906;    Esmein,  Elements 

7  constituHonnel  uth  ed.),  790-793;   and  Duguit,  Manuel  dr.  droit  conshtu- 
tionnel  (2d  ed.),  353 

■•Art.  3.     Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I. 


THE   PARLIAMENTARY   SYSTEM  437 

de  lois,  or  "  government  bills."  Legally,  a  projet  de  hi  is  an  execu- 
tive decret;  hence  it  cannot  be  introduced  by  a  minister  on  his 
own  responsibility,  or  without  the  president's  signature.  A 
minister  can  introduce  a  bill  in  the  simple  capacity  of  a  member 
of  one  of  the  chambers,  and  in  the  same  way  as  a  non-ministerial 
member.  But  such  a  bill  is  not  a  "  government  bill"  ;  and  in 
point  of  fact  the  ministers  never  exercise  their  legal  rights  in 
this  direction.  Private  members'  bills  are  known  as  propositions 
de  lois.  They  must  be  presented  in  writing,  and  in  a  prescribed 
form,  and  the  rules  carefully  regulate  the  procedure  by  which 
they  may  be  brought  up  for  consideration.  Unlike  government 
measures,  a  private  member's  bill  must  pass  the  scrutiny  of  a 
commission  d 'initiative,  whose  report  furnishes  the  basis  for  a  de- 
cision by  the  chamber  as  to  whether  it  will  "  take  the  proposition 
under  consideration."  If  the  decision  is  negative,  the  bill  cannot 
be  reintroduced  within  six  months ;  if  it  is  affirmative,  the  bill 
follows  the  same  course  as  a  government  measure. 

The  private  members'  initiative  includes  an  unlimited  right  to 
propose  amendments  to  both  projcts  and  propositions.  Indeed, 
the  opportunity  of  every  member  to  introduce  bills  and  resolu- 
tions and  amendments  thereto,  to  bring  forward  proposals  which 
modify  the  budget,  and  to  consume  the  time  of  the  chamber  with 
speechmaking  and  parliamentary  byplay  is  notably  great. 
"  It  is  impossible,"  said  a  committee  which  studied  this  subject 
in  1898,  "  to  find  a  more  marked  contrast  between  two  institu- 
tions than  that  presented  by  the  [English]  House  of  Commons 
and  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  in  the  individual  initiative  of  the 
latter  and  the  ministerial  initiative  of  the  former.  .  .  .  Even  if 
there  are  abuses  of  the  ministerial  initiative  in  England,  we  must 
nevertheless  suppress  the  abuses  of  the  individual  initiative, 
which  are  only  too  manifest  in  our  own  Chamber."1  Modifica- 
tions of  the  rules  in  the  past  twenty  years  have  placed  individual 
initiative  under  more  restraints  than  formerly.  But  the  situation 
still  contrasts  sharply  with  that  in  England,  and  the  ministers 
cannot  be  regarded  as  in  any  true  sense  the  masters  of  Parlia- 
ment.2 

Government  bills,  and  individual  bills  which  the  chamber  has 
expressed  willingness  to  consider,  are  referred  in  the  Senate  to 
the  bureaus,  and  through  them  to  special  committees.     In  the 

1  Chambre  des  Deputes,  Documents  Parlementaires,  1898-99,  p.  1492. 

2  On  the  initiation  of  legislation  see  Usher,  loc.  tit.,  488-497.  The  standard  works 
are  E.  Larcher,  L'initiative  parlementaire  en  France  (Paris,  1896),  and  L.  Michon, 
L'initiative  parlementaire  (Paris,  1898). 


GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

Chamber  of  Deputies,  bills  may  be  similarly  referred.  But  if 
they  relate  t<>  any  one  of  the  fields  of  legislation  covered  l>y  the 
standing  <  ommittees,  they  go  directly  to  the  appropriate  commit- 
tee in  this  group;  and  since  these  fields  include  such  important 
subjects  as  tariffs.  Labor,  agriculture,  commerce  and  industry, 
public  works,  the  army,  the  navy,  foreign  affair-,  education,  and 
public  health,  it  follows  that  most  bills  arc  handled  l>y  a  standing 
Committee.  Reports  of  bureaus  and  committees  are  printed 
and  distributed,  and  are  presumably  in  the  hands  of  all  members 
when  the  general  debate  in  the  chamber  begins.  The  hall  in 
which  each  body  sits  Is  semicircular,  with  as  many  seats  and  desks 
as  there  are  members  to  be  accommodated.  In  the  center  stands 
a  raised  armchair  for  the  use  of  the  president,  and  in  front  of  it 
is  a  platform,  or  "  tribune,"  which  every  member  who  desire-  to 
speak  is  required  to  mount.  On  either  side  of  the  tribune  are 
stenographers,  whose  reports  of  the  proceedings  are  printed 
each  morning  in  the  Journal  Officiel.  The  first  tier  of  seats  in 
the  semicircle,  facing  the  tribune,  is  reserved  for  the  Govern- 
ment, i.e.,  the  members  of  the  ministry;  behind  are  ranged 
the  remaining  members  of  the  chamber,  with  the  radicals  on  the 
president's  left  and  the  conservatives  on  his  right.  In  order  to 
become  law,  a  measure  must  pass  two  readings  hi  each  chamber, 
with  an  interval  of  five  days,  unless  otherwise  ordered  by  a 
majority  vote.  A  member  wishing  to  take  part  in  the  debate 
indicates  his  desire  by  inscribing  his  name  on  lists  kept  by  the 
secretaries.  On  the  motion  of  any  member,  the  closure  may  be 
applied  and  a  vote  ordered.  The  division  may  be  taken  by  a 
show  of  hands,  by  rising,  or  by  a  ballot  in  which  a  white  voting 
paper  denotes  an  affirmative,  and  a  blue  one  a  negative,  vote. 
No  decision  is  valid  unless  an  absolute  majority  of  the  members 
(151  in  the  Senate  and  314  in  the  Deputies)  has  participated  in 
the  vote.1  In  the  upper  branch  proceedings  are  apt  to  be  slow 
and  dignified  ;  in  the  lower  they  are  more  animated,  and  fre- 
quently tempestuous.  The  duty  of  keeping  order  falls  to  the 
president.  In  serious  cases  he  is  empowered,  with  the  consent  of 
a  majority  of  the  chamber,  to  administer  a  reprimand  carrying 
with  it  temporary  exclusion  from  the  deliberations.2 

1  Duguit,  Manuel  de  droit  conslitutionnel  (2d  ed.),  .^73-375. 

1  For  an  Englishman's  impressions  of  the  conducl  of  business  in  the  Chamber 
uf  Deputies  see  Bodley,  France,  IF,  202-200,  2  '45.  Cf.  P.  Hubault,  "Le travail 
parlementaire;  comment  se fabriquent  les  lois,'  in  Rev.  Hebdom.,  Nov.  1,  igio,  and 
J.  S.  Crawford,  "A  Day  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,"  in  Gunton's  -\fag.,  Oct., 
1901.  The  standard  history  of  French  parliamentary  procedure  is  J.  Poudra  et 
E.  Pierre,  Traitl  pratique  dc  droit  parlementaire,  8  vols.  (Versailles,  1878-80).     R. 


THE  PARLIAMENTARY  SYSTEM  439 

The  relations  between  the  two  chambers  are  governed,  not  by 
the  constitution,  nor  yet  by  statutes,  but  by  voluntary  usages, 
inherited  to  a  considerable  extent  from  the  bicameral  parliament 
of  1814-48.  The  fundamental  principle  is  that  the  chambers 
are  equals  in  dignity  and  power,  and  also  in  function,  except  in  so 
far  as  special  functions  have  been  conferred  by  the  constitution 
or  by  law  upon  one  or  the  other.1  From  this  it  follows  that  the 
members  of  one  chamber  cannot  interfere  with  the  proceedings 
of  the  other,  and  that  each  chamber  can  adopt,  reject,  or  amend 
any  measure  that  comes  to  it  from  the  other  with  no  less  freedom 
than  if  the  measure  had  originated  within  its  own  walls.  .In  order 
to  become  law,  a  bill-must  pass  both  houses  in  exactly  the  same 
form  ;  hence,  if  it  passes  in  somewhat  different  form,  some  means 
must  be  employed  to  bring  the  houses  into  agreement.  If  the 
measure  is  a  government  bill,  the  ministers  in  charge  of  it  can 
readily  pass  from  one  chamber  to  the  other,  winning  a  conces- 
sion here  and  inducing  a  surrender  there,  until  at  last  the  differ- 
ences are  ironed  out.  If,  however,  the  measure  has  originated 
in  one  of  the  chambers  and  the  ministers  feel  no  particular  re- 
sponsibility for  its  fate,  it  is  likely  to  be  referred,  in  the  event 
of  a  disagreement  between  the  chambers,  to  a  special  joint 
committee,  on  the  analogy  of  both  English  and  American  usage. 
In  point  of  fact,  government  bills,  too,  are  sometimes  thus 
referred,  a  notable  example  being  the  military  service  law  of 
1889.2 

The  Power  of  the  Purse.  —  The  Revolution  introduced  a 
number  of  principles  relating  to  public  finance  which,  although 
not  specifically  reaffirmed  in  the  constitution  of  1875,  are  none 
the  less  regarded  by  most  French  authorities  as  integral  parts  of 
the  law  of  the  land.  Among  them  are :  no  tax  shall  be  voted 
except  by  the  people  or  their  representatives ;  taxes  shall  be 
authorized  for  but  one  year  at  a  time ;  public  funds  shall  be  ex- 
pended only  with  the  consent  of  the  nation ;  the  representatives 
of  the  people  shall  every  year,  with  the  aid  of  the  government, 
prepare  a  plan  of  expenditures  and  revenues,  i.e.,  a  budget. 
Some  of  these  principles  have  found  formal  expression  in  statutes 
enacted  since  1875.     But  in  any  event  they  lie  at  the  basis  of  all 

Dickinson,  Summary  of  the  Constitution  and  Procedure  of  Foreign  Parliaments 
(London,  1890),  is  of  some  value. 

1  For  example,  the  judicial  function  of  the  Senate  and  the  right  of  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies  to.  have  the  first  opportunity  to  consider  finance  bills. 

2  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit  constitutionnel  (4th  ed.),  825-S33; Y.  Guyot,  "Re- 
lations between  the  French  Senate  and  Chamber  of  Deputies,"  in  Contemp.  Rev., 
Feb.,  1910. 


440  GOVERNMENTS  01    EUROPE 

fiscal  operations  of   the  government.1    The   rule  that  finance 

lulls  shall  be  considered  first  in  the  lower  chamber  was  borrowed 
from  England  in  1N14,  and  the  constitution  of  1875  is  explicil 
upon  the  point.'  This  applies  not  only  to  the  annual  lot  de 
finances,  or  budget,  but  to  spei  ial  votes  of  1  redit,  to  authorization-. 
of  loans,  and  indeed  to  fiscal  measures  of  whatsoever  character; 
although  it  should  be  added  that  measures  not  primarily  fiscal. 
yet  entailing  expenditure  an  old  age  pension  law,  for  example 
—  sometimes  make  their  first  appearance  in  the  Senate.  The 
budget  is  voted  every  year  for  the  following  year;  and,  contrary 
to  the  practice  in  England,  where  many  of  the  important  taxes 
are  collected  on  tKe  basis  of  permanent  laws,  and  where  many 
expenditures  (r.t,7.,  interest  on  the  national  debt)  are  similarly 
authorized  for  an  indefinite  period,8  it  is  intended  to  cover 
all  revenues  and  expenditures  whatsoever.  It  is,  furthermore, 
specific,  in  that  it  allocates  in  detail  the  anticipated  revenues  to 
particular  services,  leaving  the  executive  and  administrative 
authorities  very  little  discretion  in  the  matter. 

The  budget  is  originally  prepared  by  the  ministers.  Each 
head  of  a  department,  with  the  aid  of  his  administrative  bureaus 
and  offices,  draws  up  the  estimates  of  expenditures  for  his  own 
department,  and  the  Minister  of  Finance  brings  these  together 
in  a  consolidated  budget  and,  in  addition,  prepares  the  estimates 
of  revenues.  The  fiscal  year  begins  January  1,  and  the  work  of 
budget-making  is  started  in  October  or  November  of  the  second 
year  preceding  that  for  which  the  budget  is  intended,  e.g.,  in 
the  autumn  of  1920  for  the  year  1922.  When  the  document  is 
complete  (it  makes  a  volume  of  upwards  of  three  thousand 
pages)  it  is  submitted  to  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  by  the  Minister 
of  Finance,  and  is  immediately  turned  over  to  the  budget  com- 
mittee, a  body  consisting  of  forty-four  members  elected  by  the 
eleven  bureaus,  four  from  each,  nominally  for  a  year,  but  actually 
for  whatever  period  may  prove  necessary  for  the  completion  of 
it>  duties.1     Working  behind  closed  doors,  the  committee  studies 

1  There-  is  doI  full  agreement  on  the  point.  Thus,  Dugui!  holds  (hat  a  vote  <>f 
taxes  by  Parliament  for  more  than  one  year  at  a  time  would  be  unconstitutional 
(Manuel  de  droit  constitutionnel,  2d  ed.,  388),  while  Ksmein  takes  the  contrary  view 
1  Elements  de  droit  constitutionnel,  4th  ed.,  - 

'■■  Law  of  I  1,  Art.  8.     Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I,  290.     SeeEsmein, 

Elements  <!•  <l>"il  constitutionnel  (4th  ed.),  84  •  857. 

;  See  p.    rSy. 

4  Stourm,  Tin  Budget,  2X0.  It  will  he  recalled  that  in  England  the  budget  was 
invariably  considered  only  in  committee  of  the  whole  until,  in  1019,  the  House 
of  Commons  adopted,  for  a  single  session,  a  rule  allowing  the  estimates  to  be  re- 
ferred to  ;i  standing  commit  in       Seep.  [94. 


THE  PARLIAMENTARY   SYSTEM  441 

the  estimates,  prepares  a  lengthy  report,  and  finally  —  after  three 
or  four  months  —  writes  out  the  text  of  a  great  loi  de  finance,  or 
finance  bill,  incorporating  the  revised  proposals.  Then  follows 
the  discussion  on  the  floor  of  the  Chamber,  first  on  the  bill  as 
a  whole,  and  afterwards  on  the  several  articles  considered  one  by 
one.  There  is  entire  freedom  of  debate;  under  certain  minor 
restrictions,  members  may  propose  amendments,  and  the  Cham- 
ber may  make  any  number  or  kind  of  changes.  While  before 
the  legislature,  the  budget  consequently  gets  beyond  the  control 
of  the  government  in  a  degree  quite  impossible  in  the  English 
system,  at  all  events  prior  to  the  adoption  by  the  House  of  Com- 
mons of  the  new  rule  of  19 19.  Furthermore,  there  is  no  restraint 
analogous  to  the  important  English  rule  that  no  expenditures 
shall  be  authorized  that  are  not  asked  by  the  executive.1  The 
changes  made  by  Parliament  are,  indeed,  more  likely  to  augment 
the  ministerial  estimates  of  expenditure  than  to  diminish  them. 
As  each  article  is  disposed  of,  a  vote  on  it  is  taken,  and  at  the 
end  the  law  is  voted  upon  as  a  whole.  As  a  rule,  the  budget  is 
before  the  Chamber  from  three  to  four  months  after  it  is  received 
from  the  committee.  Upon  its  final  passage  there,  the  project 
goes  back  to  the  finance  minister,  who  forthwith  submits  it  to  the 
Senate.  By  this  time  only  a  few  weeks  may  remain  before  the 
law  must  take  effect,  so  that  consideration  by  the  upper  chamber 
is  likely  to  be  hurried.  Precisely  the  same  procedure  as  in  the 
lower  chamber  is  followed,  however,  and  important  changes  are 
often  introduced.  When  disagreements  arise,  the  budget  goes 
back  and  forth  between  the  houses,  and  conference  committees 
labor  to  reach  an  understanding.  Only  those  points  that  are  in 
dispute  are  reconsidered;  and  eventually  a  full  agreement  is 
arrived  at.  The  completed  law  is  published  in  full  in  the  Journal 
Officiel;  and,  after  being  proclaimed  by  the  president,  it  goes  into 
operation  on  the  first  day  of  the  new  year.  There  is  no  question 
that  the  chambers  have  the  power  to  reject  a  budget  outright. 
They  have  never  seriously  threatened  to  do  so,  however,  save  on 
one  occasion,  i.e.,  at  the  time  of  the  Seize  Mai  crisis  in  1877.2 

1  See  p.  187. 

2  See  p.  445,  note  3.  The  best  account  of  French  budget  procedure  and  fiscal 
legislation,  with  much  comparison  with  English,  American,  and  other  systems,  is 
R.  Stourm,  Le  budget,  trans,  by  T.  Plazinski  as  The  Budget  (New  York,  1917). 
For  brief  accounts,  not  wholly  up  to  date,  see  Bodley,  France,  II,  225-233,  and  Es- 
mein,  Elements  de  droit  constitutionnel  (4th  ed.),  833-857.  The  accounts  of  national 
revenue  and  expenditure  are  audited  by  a  Com  des  Comtes  (Court  of  Accounts), 
which  reports  every  year  to  the  president  and  the  Chamber  of  Deputies.  Its  mem- 
bers are  appointed  by  the  president  for  life.  Its  work  resembles  that  of  the  office 
of  Auditor  General  in  Great  Britain. 


4|J  GOVERNMENTS   OF   EUROPE 

Control  over  the  Government :  the  Parliamentary  System.  — 
The  third  main  function  of  Parliament  is  the  enforcement  of  the 
principle  of  ministerial  responsibility,  which  at  the  least  means 
a  general  watchfulness  over  the  conduct  of  the  executive  and 
administrative  officers,  and,  carried  out  literally  and  completely, 
as  it  is  in  France,  means  the  ceaseless  supervision  of  and  inter- 
ference in  the  routine  of  administrative  work.  The  nature  and 
effects  of  this  control  can  best  be  made  clear  by  some  considera- 
tion of  the  workings  of  the  French  cabinet,  or  parliamentary, 
system.1  Ostensibly,  France  has  a  parliamentary  system  of 
government  copied  from,  and  substantially  like,  that  of  Great 
Britain.  There  is  a  politically  irresponsible  titulary  of  the  execu- 
tive power.  The  actual,  working  executive  consists  of  the  minis- 
ters. The  ministers  are  responsible,  collectively  in  general  mat- 
ters and  individually  in  particular  ones,  to  the  chambers  —  mainly 
to  the  Chamber  of  Deputies.  When  defeated  on  any  impor- 
tant proposition,  they  resign  as  a  body.  The  right  of  dissolu- 
tion as  a  means  of  terminating  conflicts  between  the  executive 
and  legislative  departments  is  duly  provided  for. 

In   practice,    parliamentary    government   in    France    means, 
however,  something  very  different  from  what  it  means  across 
the  Channel.     It  presents  an  appearance  such  that  some  observers 
have  been  led  to  apply  to  it  the  designation  "parliamentary 
anarchy,"  its  outstanding  characteristics  being  the  instability 
of  ministries,  the  frequency  of  ministerial  crises,  and  the  recur- 
ring conflicts  between  the  chambers  and  the  Government.     From 
the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  to  the  outbreak  of  the  Great 
War  in  1914  England  had  but  twelve  prime  ministers ;    France 
had  as  many  between  1900  and  1914.     From  1873  to  1914  Eng- 
land  had  but  eleven   different  ministries;    France  had   fifty. 
Between  1875  and  1900  only  four  years  passed  in  the  latter  coun- 
try without  at  least  one  change  of  ministry.     Only  four  of  the 
fifty  ministries  between  1873  and  19 14  held  power  for  a  longer 
period  than  two  years,  and  most  of  them  were  in  office  only  a 
few  months,  the  average  tenure  for  the  whole  period  being,  in- 
deed, less  than  eight  months.2     It  is  of  the  essence  of  parliamen- 
tary government  that  the  tenure  of  the  ruling  ministry  shall  be 
determined  entirely  by  the  continuance  of  good  relations  with 
the  popular  chamber.     No  ministry,  even  in  England,  has  any 

1  The  term  "cabinet  system"  is  most  commonly  used  in  England,  the  term 
"  parliamentary  system  "  in  France.  . 

2  J.  W.  Garner,  "Cabinet  Government  in  France,"  in  Amcr.  Poht.  Set.  Kev., 
Aug.,  1914,  pp.  368-369. 


THE  PARLIAMENTARY  SYSTEM  443 

definite  assurance  as  to  its  lifetime.  The  statistics  cited  show, 
however,  that  in  the  latter  country  a  ministry  has  a  reasonable 
expectation  of  several  years  in  which  to  carry  out  its  policies. 
In  France,  a  ministry  can  be  morally  certain  that  it  will  not  last 
long.  Following  custom,  it  begins  by  issuing  a  "  declaration  " 
setting  forth  an  extensive  program  of  reforms ; l  but  it  knows  in 
its  heart  that  it  will  never  survive  to  fulfill  any  large  part  of  its 
promises.  The  work  of  government  tends  to  become  a  weari- 
some succession  of  starts  and  stops;  great  measures  hang  in 
the  balance  for  years ;  politicians  of  mediocre  ability  —  men 
who  in  England  would  not  be  considered  fit  for  ministerial  posts 
—  troop  through  the  great  offices  in  rapid  succession. 

Causes  of  Ministerial  Instability.  —  The  reasons  why  the 
parliamentary  system  works  so  much  less  smoothly  than  in 
England  are  not  difficult  to  discover.  There  is,  of  course,  the 
underlying  fact  that  whereas  the  system  is  in  the  one  country  a 
product  of  long  evolution  and  adaptation,  in  the  other  it  is  an 
importation,  imperfectly  understood  by  those  who  a  century  ago 
brought  it  in,  and  never  wholly  suited  to  its  new  environment. 
Of  more  specific  reasons  for  the  failure  of  the  system  to  work  as 
in  England,  the  most  important  is  undoubtedly,  the  condition  of 
political  parties.  Beyond  the  Channel,  while  even  before  1914 
minor  political  groups  had  sprung  up  to  complicate  the  situation, 
the  political  life  of  the  nation  has  been  largely  confined  to  two 
great  parties,  each  of  which  has  had  sufficient  strength,  if  raised 
to  power,  to  support  a  homogeneous  and  sympathetic  ministry. 
In  France,  on  the  contrary,  there  is  a  multiplicity  of  parties,  and 
no  one  of  them  ever  finds  itself  in  a  position  to  operate  the  govern- 
ment alone.  The  election  of  1910  sent  to  the  Chamber  of  Depu- 
ties representatives  of  not  fewer  than  nine  distinct  political 
groups.  No  ministry  can  be  made  up  with  any  hope  of  being 
able  to  command  a  working  majority  in  the  Chamber  unless  it 
represents  in  its  membership  a  coalition  of  several  parties.  A 
government  so  constituted,  however,  is  almost  certain  to  be 
vacillating  and  short-lived.  It  is  unable  to  please  all  of  the  groups 
and  interests  upon  which  it  depends  ;  it  dares  displease  none ;  it 
commonly  ends  by  displeasing  all. 

A  second  cause  of  ministerial  instability  is  Parliament's  in- 
sistence upon  the  exercise  of  a  close  and  continuous  control  over 
the  ministers,  not  only  in  the  shaping  of  policy,  but  in  matters 

1  There  is  no  ministerial  declaration,  corresponding  to  the  Speech  from  the  Throne 
in  England,  at  the  opening  of  a  parliamentary  session.  But  a  new  ministry,  when- 
ever it  comes  in,  offers  a  statement  of  principle  and  policy. 


444  GOVERNMENTS   01     El  ROPE 

of  administrative  detail.  In  England,  as  has  beeii  pointed  out, 
the  cabinet  leads  and  dominates  in  both  legislation  and  adminis 
tration.  Parliament  holds  it  to  a  general  responsil  ility,  bul  in 
practice  allows  it  free  scope,  especially  on  the  side  of  adminis- 
tration.1 The  French  parliament  is  contenl  to  play  no  such 
passive,  trustful  role  It  displays  a  regrettable  eagerness  to 
dictate  appointments  and  promotion-.,  issue  orders,  and  meddle 
generally  in  matters  that  du  not  properly  concern  it.  "  Not 
content  with  deprhing  the  chief  of  state  of  his  constitutional 
prerogatives  and  reducing  him  to  the  position  of  a  figurehead, 
the  French  chambers  insist  upon  throwing  the  ministers  out 
upon  trivial  questions,  and  this  notwithstanding  the  constitu- 
tional prescription  that  they  shall  be  responsible  only  for  their 
general  policies."  2 

The  position  occupied  by  French  ministries  is  made  the  more 
precarious  by  the  device  of  interpellation.  As  in  the  English 
parliament,  every  member  of  the  two  chambers  has  the  right  to 
put  to  a  minister,  in  the  presence  of  the  chamber,  a  question 
designed  to  elicit  information,  providing  the  minister  assents. 
Normally,  the  question  is  asked,  a  reply  is  given,  the  author  of 
the  question  makes  a  rejoinder  if  he  wishes  (though  no  one  else 
may  do  so),  and  the  incident  passes  without  debate ;  at  all  events, 
there  is  no  vote.  French  usage  permits,  however,  another  prac- 
tice, whose  consequences  extend  much  farther.  This  is  inter- 
pellation. An  interpellation  is,  similarly,  a  demand  for  informa- 
tion made  by  a  member  or  group  of  members  upon  a  minister. 
But  in  this  case  the  consent  of  the  minister  is  not  asked,  the 
demand  is  reduced  to  writing,  the  chamber  fixes  the  day  when  it 
shall  be  put,3  and  debate  follows,  with  motions,  serving  to  bring 
under  challenge  the  general  policy  of  the  ministry,  or  at  all 
events  an  act  or  policy  of  an  individual  minister.  Frequently 
information  is  sought  only  as  a  pretext,  the  real  object  being  to 
put  the  Government  on  the  defensive  and  to  maneuver  it  into 
a  position  where  it  can  be  defeated  and  compelled  to  resign.  In 
short,  the  interpellation  is,  as  has  been  stated,  a  challenge.  It 
becomes  the  subject  of  a  general  debate,  and  it  almost  invariably 
leads  to  a  vote  of  an  "  order  of  the  day,"  which  in  its  simplest 
form  is  a  vote  on  the  question  whether  the  chamber,  "  approving 
the  declarations  of  the  Government,"  shall  pass  to  the  considera- 

1  Willoughby,  Government  of  Modern  Stales,  237-241 ;  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit 
constitutionnel  (4th  ed.),  884-887. 

2  Garner,  lor.  til.,  366. 

3  Not  more  than  one  month  distant  unless  the  question  relates  to  foreign  affairs. 


THE  PARLIAMENTARY   SYSTEM  445 

tion  of  other  subjects  that  have  been  made  the  order  for  the  day.1 
If  this  vote  is  affirmative,  the  ministry  has  weathered  the  storm, 
and  nothing  happens.  But  if  it  is  negative,  it  is  tantamount  to 
an  expression  of  want  of  confidence,  and  ordinarily  there  is  noth- 
ing for  the  ministers  to  do  save  resign.  As  may  be  surmised, 
interpellation  is  a  practice  which  readily  lends  itself  to  abuse,  and 
ministries  are  often  overthrown  on  mere  technicalities  or  other 
matters  inherently  unimportant.  The  chambers  have  full 
power  to  restrict,  or  even  to  abolish,  the  system  by  amending 
their  rules.  But  the  right  of  interpellation  is  regarded  by  French 
authorities  as  an  indispensable  means  of  enforcing  ministerial 
responsibility,  and  there  is  reluctance  to  place  limitations  upon 
it.  Interpellation,  as  employed  in  France,  is  unknown  in  Eng- 
land. The  statements  of  a  minister  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
made  in  answer  to  an  interrogation,  are  allowed  to  become  the 
subject  of  debate  and  the  occasion  of  a  vote  only  on  request  of 
forty  members ;   and  such  requests  are  rarely  made.2 

A  final  cause  of  French  ministerial  instability  is  the  practical 
ineffectiveness  of  the  constitutional  provision  for  parliamentary 
dissolutions.  The  power  to  dissolve  the  Chamber  of  Deputies 
is  formally  vested  in  the  president,  and  would  normally  be  exer- 
cised by  the  ruling  cabinet.  It  is  subject,  however,  to  a  restric- 
tion which  has  no  parallel  in  England :  a  dissolution  can  take 
place  only  with  the  consent  of  the  upper  chamber.  Furthermore, 
the  dissolution  which  was  carried  out  in  1877  was  so  unwise,  if 
not  actually  unconstitutional,  as  to  bring  the  practice  into  lasting 
disfavor.3  The  consequence  is  that  there  has  not  been  a  dissolu- 
tion since  that  date,  and  the  power  is  for  practical  purposes  ob- 
solete. The  effect  of  this  is  obvious.  In  England,  when  dis- 
agreement arises  between  the  cabinet  and  Parliament  the  minis- 
ters may  resign  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  they  may  dissolve  Parlia- 
ment, order  a  general  election,  win  a  parliamentary  majority,  and 

1  For  the  numerous  shades  of  praise  or  blame  that  an  order  of  the  day  may  be 
made  to  express  see  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parlies,  I,  1 20-1 21. 

2  See  p.  180.  Garner,  loo.  cit.,  360-362;  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  I, 
119-126;  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit  constitutional  (4th  ed.),  858-860;  Dupriez, 
Les  ministrcs,  II,  439-445. 

3  For  the  circumstances  see  Bodley,  France,  I,  286-289,  and  for  a  fuller  account, 
Hanotaux,  Contemporary  France,  III,  Chap,  ix,  IV,  Chap.  i.  President  Mac- 
Mahon,  himself  a  monarchist,  arbitrarily  dismissed  the  republican  premier,  Jules 
Simon,  named  the  monarchist  Due  de  Broglie  as  his  successor,  and  finding  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies  hostile,  obtained  the  consent  of  the  monarchist  Senate  to  a 
dissolution.  In  the  ensuing  national  elections  the  reactionary  government  system- 
atically employed  the  methods  used  by  Napoleon  III  to  obtain  a  legislative  majority. 
The  new  Chamber  was,  however,  republican,  and  the  formation  of  a  republican 
cabinet  by  Dufaure  brought  the  Seize  Mai  crisis  to  an  end. 


446  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EURO II 

remain  at  the  helm.  This  is  precisely  what  happened  at  the  two 
national  elections  of  iqio.  But  in  Prance,  it  is  the  ministry 
that  must  give  way  in  any  conflict  with  Parliament  ;  dissolution 
is,  practically,  not  available  as  a  mode  of  ministerial  vindication. 
In  other  words,  the  ministry  is  responsible  to  Parliament  alone 
and  not  to  the  nation ;  it  cannot  appeal  over  the  head  of  Parlia- 
ment to  the  electorate,  or  ask  the  people  to  sustain  it  by  electing 
a  parliament  of  a  different  complexion.  As  has  been  explained, 
development  in  England  has  been  of  precisely  the  opposite  sort. 
There,  unless  the  circumstances  are  very  unusual,  the  ministry 
refuses  to  yield  to  an  adverse  parliamentary  majority  unless  the 
people  back  up  that  majority  at  the  polls.1 

Elements  of  Continuity  and  Stability.  — "  The  chronic  in- 
ability of  the  French  to  produce  the  two-party  system,"  say-  an 
English  writer,  "  is  in  itself  a  sure  sign  of  their  incapacity  for 
parliamentary  government."2  This  judgment  is  much  too  dras- 
tic. Failure  to  develop  a  two-party  system  (and  there  is  no  in- 
dication that  such  a  system  will  arise)  unquestionably  means 
that  France  cannot  have  parliamentary  government  of  the  Eng- 
lish type.  It  may  very  well  mean  that  her  government  must 
continue  to  be  in  some  respects  inferior  to  the  English.  But  it 
does  not  mean  that  the  French  system  is  impossible,  objection- 
able, or  inefficient,  or  that  it  is  not  entitled  to  be  called  "  parlia- 
mentary government."  In  point  of  fact,  French  government  is 
exceptionally  democratic,  economical,  and  effective.  It  is  also 
far  more  stable  and  continuous  than  might  be  inferred  from  the 
kaleidoscopic  succession  of  ministries;  and  this  for  two  main 
reasons.  In  the  first  place,  in  each  executive  department  there 
is,  as  in  England,  a  corps  of  highly  trained  officials  who  carry  on 
the  actual  work  of  administration  and  who  do  not  change  with 
the  rise  and  fall  of  their  chiefs.  In  the  second  place,  a  minis- 
terial "  crisis  "  involves  as  a  rule  no  very  great  upset.  Defeated 
in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  or  unable  to  make  progress,  a  min- 
istry as  a  body  resigns.  But  many  of  the  members  will  prob- 
ably be  immediately  reappointed,  with  perhaps  an  exchange  of 
portfolios.  In  England  a  change  of  ministry  usually  means 
not  only  a  new  personnel  throughout,  but  a  general  shift  of 
policy.  In  France  many  familiar  faces  reappear,  and  the  change 
of  policy  is  apt  to  be  microscopic.     In  her  own  way  —  which  is 

1  On  the  general  subject  of  the  control  over  the  ministers  by  the  chambers  in 
France  see  Dupriez,  Les  ministres,  II,  432-461 ;  Esmein,  Elements  de  droit  constitu- 
tionnel  (4th  ed.),  857-884;  and  Poudra  et  Pierre,  Traite  pratique  dc  droit  parle- 
mentairc,  VII,  Chap.  iv. 

2  Bodley,  France,  II,  176. 


THE   PARLIAMENTARY  SYSTEM  447 

not  necessarily  the  best  way,  but  the  only  way  for  her,  considering 
the  conditions  —  France  contrives  to  get  most  of  the  great  ad- 
vantages of  parliamentary  government.  If  the  political  surface 
seems  unduly  ruffled,  it  is  only  the  ripples  that  reach  the  eye ; 
the  current  runs  deep  and  steady  beneath.1 

1  For  varying  estimates  of  the  French  parliamentary  system  see  Bodley,  France, 
II,  Chap,  v;  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  I,  127-137;  and  E.  S.  Bradford,  The 
Lesson  of  Popular  Government  (New  York,  1899),  I,  Chap.  xv.  See  also  Dupriez,  Les 
ministres,  II,  373-461  ;  L.  Duguit,  "  Le  functionnement  du  regime  parlementaire 
en  France,"  in  Rev.  Polit.  et  Pari.,  Aug.,  1900;  C.  Benoist,  "  Parlements  et  parle- 
mentarisme,"  in  Rev.  des  Deux  Mondes,  Aug.  1,  1900;  ibid.,  La  reforme  parlemen- 
taire (Paris,  1902) ;  J.  Barthelemy,  V  introduction  du  regime  parlementaire  en  France 
(Paris,  1904);  F.  Moreau,  Pour  le  regime  parlementaire  (Paris,  1903),  and  H.  Ley- 
ret,  Le  gouvemement  et  le  parlement  (Paris,  1919).  An  interesting  piece  of  reading 
in  this  connection  is  J.  T.  Shotwell,  "The  Political  Capacity  of  the  French,"  in 
Polit.  Sci.  Quar.,  Mar.,  1909. 


CHAPTER   XXV 
LAW  AND   JUSTICE 

Legal  Origins.  -The  law  of  France,  like  that  of  England,  is 
deeply  rooted  in  the  past  and  includes  elements  drawn  from 

many  sources.  Considerable  parts  of  it  are  strictly  modern, 
having  sprung  from  the  legislation  of  the  successive  national 
assemblies  between  1789  and  the  present  day.  But  other  impor- 
tant parts  represent  codifications  of  legal  principles  and  rules 
whose  origins  are  traceable  to  the  Middle  Ages,  or  even  to  a 
remoter  antiquity.  Aside  from  certain  contributions  from  the 
canon  law,  French  law  in  medieval  and  earlier  modern  times 
1  ■.  moisted  chiefly  of  (1)  survivals  of  Roman  law  ;  (2)  local  coutumes, 
or  "customs";  and  (3)  royal  legislation.  Roman  law,  which 
under  the  later  Empire  was  extended  over  the  whole  of  Gaul, 
was  neither  entirely  superseded  nor  forgotten  because  of. the 
( in-manic  occupation ;  and  in  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  cen- 
turies it  underwent,  especially  in  the  south,  a  notable  revival. 
From  this  time  dates  the  division  of  the  kingdom  into  the  southern 
pays  de  droit  ecrit  ("  land  of  the  written  law  "),  in  which  Roman 
law,  as  codified  by  Justinian,  was  received  as  the  ordinary  law, 
and  the  northern  pays  de  coutumc  ("  land  of  customary  law  "), 
where  the  Roman  law  was  far  outweighed  by  custom.  As  late 
as  the  sixteenth  century  fresh  influences  of  the  Roman  law,  in 
such  fields  as  contracts  and  obligations,  were  powerfully  exerted 
on  the  development  of  legal  usage  throughout  the  country,  even 
in  the  north. 

Customary  law  sprang  partly  from  old  Germanic  practices, 
partly  from  feudal  usage,  partly  from  the  decisions  of  a  wide 
variety  of  public  and  private  courts.  It  was  local  law;  for 
although  the  coutumes  of  the  petty  jurisdictions  tended  to  merge 
into  bodies  of  law  having  force  throughout  large  regions,  this 
development  never  went  so  far  as  to  bring  about  substantial 
uniformity  of  law  over  the  kingdom  as  a  whole.  The  English 
common  law  —  which  also  was  the  product  of  custom  —  found 
in  France  no  analogy; 1  Voltaire  could  still  say  at  the  middle  of 
the  eighteenth  century  that  a  traveler  in  France  had  to  change 

1  See  pp.  20 7 -jog. 
448 


LAW  AND  JUSTICE  449 

laws  about  as  often  as  he  changed  horses.  Originally,  the  custom- 
ary law  was  unwritten.  Jurists,  however,  occasionally  made 
collections,  called  livres  coutumiers,  and  judges'  clerks  some- 
times compiled  registers  of  notable  decisions.  By  the  sixteenth 
century  the  "  general  "  customs  of  the  provinces  and  districts 
of  the  pays  coutumiers  were,  in  most  cases,  formally  recorded. 
Their  codification  became,  indeed,  a  matter  of  official  action. 
Drafts  prepared  by  the  king's  judicial  agents  in  the  districts 
were  submitted  to  the  government,  referred  back  to  specially 
constituted  local  assemblies,  and  finally  proclaimed  by  royal 
commissions ;  and  the  texts  could  thenceforth  be  altered  only  by 
the  same  procedure. 

Royal  legislation  took  the  form  of  Hits,  declarations,  or  or  don- 
nances,  which  were  sometimes  applicable  to  the  entire  country, 
sometimes  only  to  specified  sections.  The  grandes  ordonnances 
of  the  fourteenth,  fifteenth,  and  sixteenth  centuries  were  com- 
monly promulgated  after  sessions  of  the  Estates  General  and, 
being  drawn  up  with  a  view  to  meeting  the  suggestions  of  the 
deputies,  were  likely  to  embrace  a  good  deal  of  new  law,  or  at 
least  to  make  important  changes  in  the  old  laws.  From  161 4  to 
1789  the  Estates  General  was,  however,  never  convened,  and  in 
this  period  the  ordonnances  oftener  took  the  form  of  a  codifi- 
cation of  a  particular  branch  of  law.  Under  Colbert's  direc- 
tion, in  the  reign  of  Louis  XIV,  a  code  of  civil  procedure  was 
issued  in  1667,  a  forest  code  in  1669,  a  code  of  criminal  procedure 
in  1670,  a  code  of  commerce  on  land  in  1673,  and  a  code  of 
commerce  on  the  sea  in  1681.  Similarly,  at  the  instigation  of 
the  chancellor  d'Aguesseau,  in  the  reign  of  Louis  XV,  codes  were 
issued  relating  to  wills,  property  left  in  trust,  and  other  matters.1 

The  Great  Codes.  —  The  Revolution  was  an  event  of  the  first 
magnitude  in  the  history  of  French  law,  for  two  principal  reasons. 
In  the  first  place,  the  successive  assemblies  revised  or  abrogated  a 
very  large  part  of  the  existing  law,  and  enacted  great  masses  of 
new  and  uniform  law,  on  marriage  and  divorce,  on  inheritance,  on 
land  tenure,  on  criminal  procedure,  and  on  many  other  subjects. 
In  the  second  place,  the  Constituent  Assembly  and  the  Conven- 
tion undertook,  although  they  were  not  able  to  carry  far,  the  codi- 
fication or  recodification,  of  the  whole  body  of  French  law,  old 
and  new,  civil  and  criminal.  In  1791  the  Constituent  Assembly 
gave  the  country  its  first  penal  code ;  four  years  later  the  Con- 
vention gave  it  a  new  code  of  criminal  procedure.  The  greatest 
need  was  a  code  of  civil  law,  which  should  bring  together  the 
1  Ilbert,  Legislative  Methods  and  Forms,  8-15. 


450  GOVERNMENTS   OF   EUROPE 

best  that  was  in  the  regional  systems,  fuse  it  with  the  new 
legislation,  and  thus  furnish  a  nation-wide  and  uniform  legal 
system.  Such  a  code  was  earnestly  demanded  in  the  cahiers  of 
1789  and  was  definitely  promised  in  the  constitution  of  1791. 

Some  steps  in  this  direction  were  taken  by  the  first  two  Revo- 
lutionary assemblies,  but  the  development  of  a  coherent  plan 
began  only  in  the  Convention,  in  1793.1  In  the  period  of  the 
Consulate  (1 799-1804)  the  task  was  continued  and  progress 
was  rapid.  The  drafting  of  the  code  was  intrusted  to  a  special 
commission,  appointed  by  the  First  Consul,  Napoleon ;  and  the 
final  decision  of  difficult  or  controverted  questions  fell  to  the 
Council  of  State,  over  whose  deliberations  Napoleon  frequently 
presided  in  person.  On  March  31,  1804  —  less  than  two  months 
before  the  Empire  was  proclaimed  — ■  the  new  Code  Civil  des 
Franqais  was  promulgated  in  its  entirety.2 

In  arrangement  the  Code  resembles  the  Institutes  of  Justinian, 
and  also  Blackstone's  Commentaries;  in  content  it  represents  a 
very  successful  combination  of  the  two  great  elements  with  which 
the  framers  had  to  deal,  i.e.,  the  ancient  heterogeneous  law  of  the 
French  provinces  and  the  new  uniform  law  which  flowed  from 
the  deliberations  of  the  Revolutionary  assemblies.  Napoleon 
justly  regarded  the  Civil  Code  as  the  chief  glory  of  his  reign. 

With  the  progress  of  time  certain  defects  appeared,  and  since 
the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  Code  has  been  repeat- 
edly amended  and  expanded,  although  it  remains  essentially  the 
same  in  principle  as  when  it  left  the  hands  of  its  framers.  The 
last  important  revision  was  worked  out  by  an  extra-parliamen- 
tary commission  created  at  the  celebration  of  the  Code's  cen- 
tennial in  1904.  In  the  main,  the  faults  to  be  corrected  were 
such  as  had  sprung  from  the  development  of  new  interests  and 
conditions,  notably  in  the  domain  of  industry  and  labor.3  As  a 
great  scientifically  organized  body  of  law,  the  Code  has  had 
world-wide  influence.  In  Belgium,  which  received  it  when  the 
country  formed  a  part  of  the  Greater  France  of  Napoleonic 
times,  it  survives  practically  intact.  The  Rhine  Provinces  of 
Germany  abandoned  it  only  on  the  promulgation  of  the  civil 

1  H.  Cauviere,  L'idee  de  codification  en  France  avant  la  redaction  du  Code  Civil 
(Paris,  191 1). 

2  In  1807  the  instrument  was  renamed  the  Code  Napoleon.  The  original  designa- 
tion was  restored  in  181S,  the  amended  name  again  in  1852.  Since  1870  the  official 
name  has  been  Code  Civil. 

3  See  La  Code  Civil,  livrc  du  centenaire  (Paris,  1904)  —  a  volume  of  valuable 
essays  by  French  and  foreign  lawyers.  Cf.  M.  Leroy,  "Le  centenaire  du  code 
penal,"  in  Rev.  de  Paris,  Feb.  t,  191 1. 


LAW  AND  JUSTICE  45 1 

code  of  the  German  Empire  in  1900.'  The  civil  law  of  the 
Netherlands,  Italy,  Spain,  Portugal,  and  most  of  the  Latin- 
American  states  is  modeled  upon  it. 

Aside  from  the  revised  Civil  Code  of  1804,  containing  a  total 
of  2281  articles,  the  private  law  of  France  to-day  is  to  be  found 
mainly  in  four  great  codes,  which  in  their  original  form  also  date 
from  the  era  of  the  Consulate  and  the  Empire.  These  are : 
(x)  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  in  1042  articles,  promulgated 
in  1806,  and  based  largely  on  the  grand  ordonnance  of  1667; 

(2)  the  Code  of  Commerce,  in  648  articles,  issued  in  1907,  and 
practically  a  revision  of  the  ordonnances  of   1673   and   1681  , 

(3)  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  in  648  articles,  promul- 
gated in  1808,  and  retaining  many  of  the  forms  of  the  ordonnance 
of  1670  and  other  earlier  laws,  although  introducing  much  new 
procedure  and  ameliorating  the  harshness  of  the  old  system ; 
and  (4)  the  Penal  Code,  in  484  articles,  issued  in  1810,  and 
substituting  for  the  old  scheme  of  fixed  penalties  maxima  and 
minima  for  the  guidance  of  judges  in  the  exercise  of  their  dis- 
cretion.2 The  last  two  codes,  together  with  that  part  of  the 
Code  of  Commerce  relating  to  bankruptcy,  were  revised  in  1832  ; 
and  during  the  Second  Empire  all  parts  of  the  criminal  and 
penal  law  were  remodeled  with  a  view  to  bringing  them  into 
accord  with  the  most  advanced  and  humane  principles  of  juris- 
prudence. Thus,  laws  of  1863  introduced  a  simple  and  rapid 
procedure,  taken  over  from  the  English  police  courts,  for  courts 
of  summary  jurisdiction,  and  altered  the  Penal  Code  so  as  to 
lighten  many  penalties  and  reclassify  certain  crimes  as  mis- 
demeanors. Since  187 1  many  other  notable  changes  in  criminal 
law  and  procedure  have  been  made,  including  a  very  desirable 
alteration  in  1897  of  the  form  of  the  preliminary  examination  be- 
fore the  juge  d' instruction;  indeed,  one  may  say  that  these 
branches  of  law  have  been  completely  recast.3 

Except  on  the  side  of  criminal  law  and  procedure,  the  changes 
made  in  the  codes  since  Napoleon's  day  have  hardly  extended 
beyond  details,  or,  at  the  most,  the  addition  of  subjects  not 
.originally  covered.  No  one  of  the  codes  ever  comprised  a 
wholly,  or  even  mainly,  new  body  of  law.  On  the  contrary,  all 
of  them,  and  especially  the  Civil  Code,  merely  reduced  existing 
law  to  systematic,  written  form,  introducing  order  and  uniformity 

1  See  p.  652.  . 

2  Among  minor,  supplementary  codes  may  be  mentioned  the  Forest  Code,  in 
226  articles,  promulgated  in  1827. 

3  These  changes  are  described  in  D.  Garrand,  Traite  theoretique  et  pratique  du 
droit  penal  franqais  (3d  ed.,  Mayenne,  1915). 


452  GOVERNM]  NTS  01     El  ROPE 

where  there  had  been  diversity,  and  even  chaos.  The  law  of  the 
country  thus  acquired  unity  and  precision  such  as  it  had  never 
had.  with  the  disadvantage,  however,  that  it  lost  something  of 
the  flexibility  and  dynamic  \i.ur<u-  that  had  once  characterized  it. 
Throughout  the  past  hundred  years  the  whole  of  Prance  has 
been  a  country  of  .me  written  law  a  law  so  comprehensive  in 
both  principles  and  details  that,  until  the  greal  economic  and 
social  transformations  of  recenl  times,  there  seemed  to  he  little 
reason  for  changing  it.  As  has  been  pointed  out,  this  complete- 
ness <>f  the  country's  law  has  considerably  narrowed  the  field 
of  legislation,  and  has  accordingly  lessened  the  labors  and  achieve- 
ments of  the  parliament  of  the  Third  Republic.1 

The  Judicial  System:  General  Aspects.  No  part  of  the 
French  governmental  system  called  more  loudly  for  reform 
when  the  Estates  General  convened  in  17.Sc)  than  the  judiciary. 
In  its  structure,  the  judicial  establishment  was  largely  of  me- 
dieval origin.  Seigniorial  and  ecclesiastical  courts  survived  to 
some  extent,  but  their  jurisdiction  was  limited  and,  in  the  main, 
the  field  was  occupied  by  tribunals  directly  authorized  by  and 
responsible  to  the  king.  The  most  important  of  the  royal 
courts  was  the  Parlement  of  Paris,  developed  out  of  the  curia 
regis  in  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries,  and,  through  its 
several  chambers,  or  branches,  serving  as  the  highest  court  of 
appeal.2  About  a  dozen  provinces  had  parletnents  of  their  own 
which  had  arisen  on  the  model  of  the  central  parlement.  In 
addition,  there  were  large  numbers  of  special  or  local  courts,  of 
which  many  bore  no  logical  relation  one  to  another  or  to  the 
system  as  a  whole.  Procureurs  du  roi  representee!  the  king  in  the 
courts,  whether  as  plaintiff  or  defendant,  and  were  in  general 
responsible  for  seeing  that  the  law  —  whatever  it  was  in  the 

1  The  best  brief  treatise  on  French  law  is  J.  Brissaud,  Cows  d'histoire  generate 
du  droit  f ran cais  public  et  privi  il'ari>,  1004).  The  portions  relating  to  private 
law,  trans,  by  R.  Howell,  have  been  published  under  the  title  History  of  French 
Private  Law  'boston,  1912).  This  work,  however,  treats  the  law  subject  by  sub- 
je  t.  without  presenting  a  compact  survey  of  the  development  or  character  of  the 
law  in  general  More  useful,  therefore,  to  the  American  .-indent  is  A.  W.  Spencer 
fed.].  Modern  French  Legal  P  vhich  consists  of  translated 

selections  from  the  writings  of  Duguit,  Fouillee,  Demogne,  and  other  leading 
French  write  00k  on  the  1  i\il  law  is  A.  Colin  and  H. 

Capitant,  Cours  Hementaire  de  droit  civil  fran\  [916),  and  '"pment 

of  the  criminal  law  is  adequal  ibed  in  C.  I.,  von  Bar,  History  of  Continental 

Criminal  Law,  trans,  by  T.  S.  Bell  (Boston,  [91  Vn  importanl  book  is  L.  Du- 

guit, Les  transformations  generates  du  droit  privi  depuis  le  code  Napoleon  (Paris, 
[912),  trans,  by  L.  B,  Register  under  the  title  Evolution  of  Private  Law  in  the  Nine- 
teenth ('<  ntury  •  Boston,  191 

I.   Olasson,  Le  Parlement  de  Paris;  son  role  politique  depuis  le  rbgne  de  Charles 
Vlljusqu'd  la  revolution,  2  vols.  (Paris,  1901). 


LAW  AND  JUSTICE  453 

given  locality  —  was  duly  applied.  The  level  of  judicial  efficiency 
and  integrity  was  not  high.  Judgeships  and  other  positions 
were  often  disposed  of  by  the  government  to  the  highest  bidder ; 
some  became  hereditary ;  occasionally  the  offices  were  sold  by 
the  holders  themselves  to  their  successors.  Having  paid  well 
for  their  positions,  the  judges  were  prone  to  recoup  themselves 
by  accepting  gifts,  often  in  money,  from  parties  to  suits. 

The  Constituent  Assembly  decided  on  a  complete  reorganiza- 
tion of  the  judicial  system,  which  was  carried  out  on  such  simple 
and  scientific  lines  that  few  structural  changes  have  since  been 
necessary.  Copying  from  England,  it  established  in  every 
canton  ajuge  de  paix,  or  justice  of  the  peace.  In  each  arrondisse- 
ment,  or  district,  it  set  up  a  civil  court  composed  of  five  judges. 
In  each  department  a  criminal  court,  consisting  of  judges  drawn 
from  the  district  courts,  was  to  judge  crimes  with  the  assistance 
of  a  jury.  Finally,  a  court  of  cassation  at  the  capital  was  to 
hear  appeals  on  questions  of  law  and  to  use  its  influence  to 
preserve  the  new  unity  of  jurisprudence.  All  judges  were  to  be 
elected  for  a  term  of  years ;  and  ample  safeguards  were  set  up 
against  bribery  and  other  forms  of  misconduct  on  the  bench. 
Under  the  First  Empire  the  elective  principle  was  set  aside  in 
favor  of  appointment  by  the  central  government,  and  the  sepa- 
rate criminal  tribunals  were  abolished.  Otherwise,  the  system 
survives  to-day  practically  as  first  created. 

Three  or  four  general  features  of  the  judicial  establishment 
call  for  comment  before  the  courts  are  named  or  their  workings 
described.  The  first  is  the  fact  that  —  aside  from  a  provision 
that  the  Senate  may  be  constituted  a  high  court  of  justice  for 
the  trial  of  impeachment  cases  and  of  cases  involving  attempts 
on  the  safety  of  the  state  —  the  judiciary  is  not  mentioned  in 
the  written  constitution,  and,  therefore,  rests  entirely  upon 
statute.  This  is  the  more  remarkable  inasmuch  as  earlier 
French  constitutions  usually  devoted  a  separate  chapter  or  title 
to  the  subject.  Why  the  omission  was  made  in  1875,  and  what 
significance  is  to  be  attached  to  it,  are  questions  upon  which 
French  lawyers  and  publicists  are  disagreed.  But  certain  facts 
are  clear :  first,  that  it  has  been  not  at  all  unusual  in  continental 
countries  to  make  no  provision  for  the  judiciary  in  the  written 
constitution ;  second,  that  many  people,  in  France  as  elsewhere, 
still  preferred  to  think  of  the  judiciary  as  a  branch  of  the  execu- 
tive power ; l  and  third,  that  the  peculiar  circumstances  under 

1  Many  French  writers  still  take  this  view.  See  H.  Berthelemy,  Traite  de  droit 
administratis  (4th  ed.,  Paris,  1906),  11. 


454  GOVERNMENTS   OF    ll  ROPE 

which  the  constitutional  laws  of  [875  were  framed  inclined  the 
embly  to  confine  its  labors  to  legislative  and  executive  organi- 
,n.  Had  the  judicial  establishment  been  provided  for  in 
the  constitution,  it  might  have  been  more  independent  than 
it  now  is;  it  might  even  have  assumed  the  right  to  declare  uncon- 
stitutional acts  of  the  legislature  null  and  void.1 

\  seccj]  !  i'.aiiuv  rs  tire  maintenance  trf  two  entirely  separate 
-  of  tribunals,  one  for  the  trial  of  ordinary  <  ivil  and  criminal 
cases,  the  other  for  the  handling  of  controversies  between  the 
administrative  authorities  and  private  individuals.  Although 
common  enough  on  the  European  continent,  no  such  cleavage 
ists  in  the  judicial  systems  of  the  English-speaking  world.'2  A 
third  feature  is  the  "  unity  of  civil  and  criminal  justice."  which 
means  that,  although  the  rules  of  procedure  differ,  civil  actions 
and  criminal  cases  are  heard  and  determined  by  the  same  courts, 
not  —  as  commonly  in  England  and  the  United  States  -—  by 
separate  tribunals;  although  it  is  but  fair  to  add  that  the  su- 
perior courts  are.  as  a  rule,  divided  into  civil  and  criminal  cham- 
bers. A  fourth  characteristic  is  the  stationariness  of  the  courts. 
The  English  and  American  system  of  circuit  judges  has  never 
been  adopted  in  France.''  although  warmly  advocated  both  at 
the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century  and  again  within  the  past 
decade.  Each  tribunal  sits  at  a  specified  place,  and  only  there. 
Finally  may  be  mentioned  the  fact  that  all  French  courts 
except  those  held  by  the  justices  of  the  peace  are  collegial  in 
organization ;  they  are  composed  of  several  judges,  and  — 
again  excepting  the  justices'  courts  —  no  judgment  is  valid 
unless  concurred  in  by  at  least  three  members.     English  and 

1  J.  W.  Garner,  "The  French  Judiciary,"  in  Vale  Law  Journal,  Mar.,  101 7. 
p.  349.  The  rule  that  the  judges  shall  nut  enter  into  the  question  of  the  consti- 
tutionality of  statute-  ha-  been  scrupulously  observed  since  [833,  when  the  Court 
of  Cassation  definitely  rejected  the  plea  of  a  journalist  against  a  statute  of  1830 

ed  on  the  argument  thai  thr  statute  '  None  the  less,  it  is 

to  be  noted  that  an  ;  number  of  trench  wril  hold  that 

ifastatui  m  titution  the  courts  cannot  applj  ii ;  and  it  may  be  added 

that  the  principle  of  judicial  review,  already  fully  accepted  in  Norway.  Rumania, 
and  one  or  two  oth.  ;  ontinent.     See  L.  Duguit, 

Law  in  tin  Modern  Slate,  trans,  by  F.  and  II.  Laski  (New  York.  ro2o),  89-93.  It 
is  M.  Duguit's  opinion  that  "if  European  jurisprudeno  el  admit  that 

a  court  can  annul  a  statute  for  violating  a  superior  rule  of  law.  it  very  1  learly  tends 
to  admit  the  plea  of  unconstitutionality  to  any  interested  party  ":  and  he  adds  that 
ai  h  jurisprudence"  will  cert  -'• ,;"  tstothi  1  om  lusion." 

For  an  excellent  brief  discussion  of  the  subject  see  J.  W.  Garni  r.  "Judicial  Control 
of  Administrative  and  U  V  ts  in  France,"  in  Amcr.  l'olil.  Sci.  Rev.,  Nov., 

1915.  pp. 1 

2The  administrative  courts  are  described  below.    See  p.  4^0. 

3  There  is  just  a  trace  of  it  in  the  courts  of  assize.     See  p.  458. 


LAW  AND   JUSTICE  455 

American  judicial  systems  trust  very  weighty  business  to  the 
wisdom  and  discretion  of  a  single  judge.  But  to  the  Frenchman 
this  seems  dangerous ;  pluralite  des  juges  has  been  a  fixed  rule ; 
juge  unique,  juge  inique,  a  proverb.  Bills  providing  that  all 
courts  of  first  instance  should  be  held  by  a  single  judge  have 
been  introduced  in  Parliament,  but  have  never  won  much 
support.1  The  body  of  judicial  officers  in  France  is  extraor- 
dinarily large,  and  for  thirty  years  judicial  reformers  and  writers 
have  urged  that  it  be  reduced.  Various  objections  have  always 
frustrated  the  reform,  and  one  of  the  most  serious  has  been  un- 
willingness to  give  up  the  collegial  principle.2 

Appointment  and  Tenure  of  Judges.  —  As  has  been  explained, 
the  Revolutionary  reformers,  in  1790,  provided  that  all  judges 
should  be  elected  by  the  people,  as  they  commonly  are  in  our 
American  states.  Experience  proved,  however,  that  popular 
election  has  certain  drawbacks,  especially  the  indifference  of 
the  voters  and  the  danger  that  the  judges  will  be  drawn  into 
politics ;  hence  it  became  the  plan  to  have  the  judges  appointed 
by  the  executive  power,  but  protected  against  arbitrary  removal 
by  a  guarantee  of  tenure  during  good  behavior.  Napoleon 
abolished  the  last  remnant  of  the  electoral  system  in  1804,  and 
appointment  by  the  executive  has  continued  without  inter- 
ruption to  the  present  time.  "  Thus,"  says  an  ex-president  of 
France,  "  saved  from  any  dangers  of  a  forcible  dismissal,  having 
no  reason  to  fear  disgrace  or  arbitrary  action,  they  have  a  greater 
liberty  of  judging  according  to  their  consciences  the  causes  which 
are  submitted  to  them."  3  At  various  times  movements  for  the 
revival  of  the  elective  principle  have  won  considerable  support, 
and  in  1883  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  passed  a  bill  providing 
for  the  change.  This  measure  was  promptly  reconsidered,  how- 
ever, and  interest  in  the  subject  has  of  late  almost  disappeared. 
"  The  fact  that  popular  election  works  well  in  Switzerland  and 
the  United  States,"  says  a  leading  French  authority,  "  is  no 
argument  for  introducing  it  in  France.  The  French  have  neither 
the  wise  toleration  of  the  Swiss  nor  the  practical  spirit  of  the 
Americans.  We  pass  easily  from  one  extreme  to  the  other,  and 
we  often  despair  of  institutions  and  men  to  whom  we  have 
accorded  the  greatest  confidence."  4 

All  judges  attached  to  the  ordinary  tribunals  are  appointed 

1  E.g.,  by  Cruppi  in  1907  and  Viviani  in  1915. 

2  Garner,  "The  French  judiciary,"  in  Yale  Law  Jour.,  Mar.,  191 7,  p.  358. 

3  Poincare,  Hem.'  France  is  Governed,  235. 

4  Marchand,  Le  recrutement  de  la  magistralure  en  France,  95. 


456  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

to-day  by  the  president  of  the  republic,  on  the  recommendation, 
and  under  the  responsibility,  of  the  Minister  of  Justice,  and 
(with  some  exceptions)  from  candidates  who  have  passed  a 
searching  examination.  With  the  exception  of  justices  of  the 
peace  in  France,  and  of  judges  of  all  grades  in  Algeria  and  the 
colonies,  tenure  of  judicial  office  continues  during  good  behavior ; 
and,  outside  of  the  classes  mentioned,  no  judicial  officer  may  be 
dismissed  without  the  consent  of  the  Court  of  Cassation.  There 
is,  however,  an  age  limit,  varying  with  the  official  grade,  at  which 
retirement  is  expected  and  virtually  required.  Justices  of  the 
peace  and  Algerian  and  colonial  judges  may  be  dismissed  by  the 
supreme  executive  authority  independently.  Salaries  are  ex- 
tremely low,  ranging  from  1600  francs  per  year  for  the  justice  of 
the  peace  to  30,000  for  the  president  of  the  Court  of  Cassation. 
It  hardly  need  be  added  that  a  judge  who  should  accept  any 
money  or  other  gift  from  a  litigant  would  expose  himself  to  heavy 
penalties;  and  it  is  the  universal  testimony  that  the  judiciary 
as  a  body  is  remarkable  for  its  integrity  and  incorruptibility. 
Indeed,  notwithstanding  the  low  pay,  the  uncertainty  of  pro- 
motion, and  the  opportunity  for  politics  to  enter  into  appoint- 
ments, the  French  judges  and  courts  compare  favorably  in 
independence,  ability,  and  impartiality  with  those  of  any  other 
country.1 

The  Ordinary  Courts.  —  It  has  been  stated  that  France  has  two 
sets  of  courts  —  the  ordinary  and  the  administrative  —  each  of 
which  maintains  practically  exclusive  jurisdiction  within  an  inde- 
pendent field.  The  ordinary  courts  comprise  civil  and  criminal 
tribunals,  together  with  certain  special  tribunals,  such  as  the 
tribunaux  de  commerce.  At  the  bottom  stands  the  court  of  the 
juge  de  paix,  or  justice  of  the  peace,  of  the  canton.  This  tri- 
bunal was  created  in  1790  and  has  existed  continuously  to  the 
present  day.  The  justice  of  the  peace  takes  cognizance  of  dis- 
putes where  the  amount  involved  does  not  exceed  600  francs, 

1  Garner,  "The  French  Judiciary,"  in  Yale  Law  Jour.,  Mar.,  1917,  contains 
an  exceedingly  lucid  and  well-informed  account  of  the  judicial  establishment.  Cf. 
the  same  author's  "Criminal  Procedure  in  France,"  in  Yale  Law  Jour.,  Feb.,  1916, 
and  "Judicial  Control  of  Administrative  and  Legislative  Acts,"  in  Amer.  Polit. 
Sei.  Rev.,  Nov.,  1915.  A  popular  sketch  is  L.  Irwell,  "The  Judicial  System  of 
France,"  in  Green  Bag,  Nov.,  1902,  and  attention  may  be  called  to  P.  Fuller,  "The 
French  Bar,"  in  Yak  Law  Jour.,  Dec,  1913,  and  F.  Allain,  "Trials  in  the  Courts 
of  France,"  in  Bench  and  Bar,  Feb.,  1919.  The  monumental  work  on  criminal  pro- 
cedure is  A.  Esmein.  Histoire  de  la  procedure  criminclle  en  France  et  specialemcntde 
la  procedure  inquisitoire  depuis  le  xiiie  siecle  jusqu'a  nos  jours  (Paris,  i88i),of  which 
large  portions  are  translated  by  J.  Simpson  under  the  title  History  of  Continental 
Criminal  Procedure  with  Special  Reference  to  France  (Boston,  19 13).  For  other 
references  see  p.  458. 


LAW  AND  JUSTICE  457 

and  of  violations  of  law  punishable  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  fifteen 
francs  or  imprisonment  not  beyond  five  days.  In  civil  cases 
involving  more  than  300  francs,  and  in  criminal  cases  involving 
imprisonment  or  a  fine  exceeding  five  francs,  appeal  lies  to  the 
next  higher  tribunal,  the  "  court  of  first  instance."  It  should 
be  added,  however,  that  the  oldest,  and  perhaps  still  the  most 
important,  function  of  the  justice  of  the  peace  is  to  prevent 
lawsuits  rather  than  to  hear  them.  He  is  expected  to  persuade 
the  parties  appearing  before  him,  if  he  can,  to  accept  a  friendly 
settlement;  and  inasmuch  as  they  are  often  his  own  neighbors, 
he  is  not  unlikely,  if  he  is  a  man  of  tact  and  probity,  to  succeed 
in  this  somewhat  delicate  undertaking. 

Next  above  the  court  of  the  justice  of  the  peace  stands  the 
tribunal  dn_  premiere  instance,  or  tribunal  d'arrondissement.  Of 
such  courts  there  is,  with  a  few  exceptions,  one  in  each  arron- 
dissement,  or  district.  Each  consists  of  a  president,  at  least  one 
vice-president,  and  a  variable  number  of  judges,  of  whom  three 
form  a  court  with  full  powers.  To  each  is  attached  a  procureur, 
or  public  prosecutor.  This  tribunal  takes  cognizance  of  all  kinds 
of  civil  cases.  In  appeals  from  the  justices  of  the  peace,  actions 
relating  to  personal  property  to  the  value  of  1500  francs,  ac- 
tions relating  to  land  to  the  value  of  sixty  francs  per  year,  and 
all  cases  of  registration,  there  is  no  appeal  from  its  decisions.  The 
jurisdiction  of  the  court  in  penal  cases  extends  to  all  offenses  of 
the  class  known  as  dclits  (misdemeanors),  i.e.,  offenses  involving 
penalties  heavier  than  those  attached  to  the  wrongful  acts  dealt 
with  by  the  justices  of  the  peace,  yet  less  serious  than  those  pre- 
scribed for  crimes.  When  sitting  as  a  criminal  court,  the  court 
of  first  instance  is  known  as  a  tribunal  correctionnel,  or  "  correc- 
tional court."  All  of  its  judgments  in  criminal  cases  are  subject 
to  appeal. 

Above  the  courts  of  first  instance  are  twenty-five  cours  d'appel, 
or  courts  of  appeal,  each  of  which  exercises  jurisdiction  within  a 
region  consisting  of  from  one  to  five  departments.  At  the  head 
is  a  president,  and  each  maintains  an  elaborate  parquet,  or 
permanent  staff  of  officials,  in  which  are  included  several  procu- 
reurs-generaux  and  avocats-generaux.  For  the  transaction  of 
business  the  court  of  appeal  is  divided  into  chambers,  or  sections, 
each  consisting  of  a  president  and  four  conseillers,  or  judges. 
The  principal  function  of  the  court  is  the  hearing  of  appeals,  in 
both  civil  and  criminal  causes,  from  the  courts  of  first  instance. 
Original  jurisdiction  is  limited  and  incidental.  The  decisions  of 
the  court  are  known  as  arrets. 


458  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

Closely  related  to  the  courts  of  appeal  are  the  cours  d 'assises, 
or  courts  of  assize.  These  are  not  separate  or  permanent  tri- 
bunals. Every  three  months  there  is  set  up  in  each  department, 
ordinarily  in  the  chief  town,  a  court  of  assize  consisting  of  a  spe- 
cially designated  member  of  the  court  of  appeals  within  whose 
jurisdiction  the  department  lies  and  two  other  magistrates,  who 
may  be  chosen  either  from  the  remaining  conseillers  of  the  court 
of  appeals  or  from  the  justices  of  the  local  court  of  first  instance. 
The  courts  of  assize  are  exclusively  occupied  with  serious  offenses, 
such  as  are  classified  in  the  Penal  Code  as  crimes.  In  them,  and 
in  them  only  among  French  tribunals,  is  a  jury  regularly  em- 
ployed. A  jury  consists  of  twelve  men,  whose  verdict  is  rendered 
by  simple  majority.  As  in  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States, 
the  jurors  determine  the  fact  but  do  not  apply  the  law.  Cases 
are  normally  tried,  and  all  sentences  must  be  pronounced,  in 
open  court.  Not  only  are  the  courts  open  to  all ;  the  state,  since 
1 85 1,  has  provided  means  whereby  the  poor  may  obtain  legal 
assistance  in  establishing  their  rights  at  law. 

At  the  apex  of  the  hierarchy  of  ordinary  tribunals  is  the  Court 
of  Cassation,  created  in  1790.  This  court  sits  at  Paris,  and  in 
all  matters  of  ordinary  private  law  it  is  the  supreme  tribunal  of 
the_siate.  It  consists  of  a  first  president,  three  sectional  presi- 
dents, and  forty-five  judges.  Attached  to  it  are  a  procurator- 
general  and  six  advocates-general.  For  working  purposes  it  is 
divided  into  three  sections :  the  Chambre  des  Requites,  or  Court 
of  Petitions,  which  gives  civil  cases  a  preliminary  hearing;  the 
Civil  Court,  which  gives  them  a  final  consideration;  and  the 
Criminal  Court,  which  disposes  of  criminal  cases  on  appeal. 
The  Court  of  Cassation  can  review  the  decisions  of  any  tribunal 
in  the  country,  save  those  of  an  administrative  character.  It 
passes  not  upon  fact,  but  upon  the  principles  of  law  involved 
and  upon  the  competence  of  the  court  rendering  the  original 
decision.  A  decision  which  is  overruled  is  said  to  be  casse,  i.e., 
quashed.  No  substitute  decision  is  offered ;  rather,  the  case, 
with  a  statement  of  the  law,  is  referred  back  to  a  tribunal  of  the 
same  grade  as  that  whose  action  has  oeen  annulled.  The  pro- 
nouncements of  the  Court  have  much  weight  with  the  judges  at 
large,  and  they  have  the  important  effect  of  establishing  a  com- 
mon basis  of  action  in  cases  of  an  analogous  character.  The 
tribunal  thus  not  only  furthers  the  interests  of  justice,  but  aids 
in  preserving  and  developing  the  unity  of  French  jurisprudence.1 

1  The  best  general  work  on  the  French  judicial  system  and  on  proposed  reforms 
of  it  is  J.  Coumoul,  Traite  du  pouvoir  jndiciaire;  de  son  role  constitutionnel  et  de  sa 


LAW  AND  JUSTICE  459 

Administrative  Law  and  Administrative  Tribunals.  —  Under 
all  forms  of  government  the  dealings  of  the  administrative  officers 
with  private  citizens  give  rise  to  innumerable  disputes.  A 
policeman  or  other  representative  of  the  government  quarantines 
a  citizen's  house  and  keeps  him  from  his  business,  suppresses 
a  newspaper  alleged  to  be  seditious,  or  runs  down  an  innocent 
person  while  in  pursuit  of  an  offender,  and  the  citizen  claims 
redress.  The  individual  officer,  or  the  government  he  repre- 
sents, may  or  may  not  be  liable,  and  the  compensation  that  can 
be  obtained  may  be  much  or  little,  or  nothing,  according  as  the 
rules  of  administrative  law  prescribe  or  allow.  Administra- 
tive law  may  be  briefly  defined  as  the  body  of  legal  principles 
by  which  are  determined  the  status  and  liabilities  of  public 
officials,  the  rights  of  private  citizens  as  against  these  officials, 
and  the  procedure  by  which  these  rights  and  liabilities  may  be 
enforced.1  The  idea  underlying  it  is  that  the  government,  and 
every  agent  of  the  government,  has  rights,  privileges,  and  preroga- 
tives differing  from  those  of  the  private  citizen,  and  that  the 
nature  and  extent  of  these  rights  and  privileges  are  to  be  deter- 
mined on  principles  essentially  distinct  from  those  that  govern 
in  fixing  the  rights  and  privileges  of  citizens  in  relation  one  to 
another.  All  civilized  states  have  more  or  less  elaborate  systems 
of  administrative  law,  springing  partly  from  legislation,  partly 
from  court  decisions. 

In  English-speaking  countries  it  has  always  been  assumed 
that  the  best  way  to  protect  the  individual  against  adminis- 
trative acts  that  are  ultra  vires,  or  otherwise  wrongful,  is  to  give 
broad  powers  and  strong  organization  to  the  ordinary  courts 
of  justice.  Most  peoples  whose  jurisprudence  is  based  on  the 
Roman  Law  have  solved  the  problem  in  a  different  way,  namely, 
by  setting  up  a  separate  system  of  courts  •  charged  with  the 
handling  of  cases  of  an  administrative  nature,  and  by  placing 
these  courts,  not  under  the  Ministry  of  Justice,  but  under  the 

reforme  organique  (2d  ed.,  Paris,  191 1).  The  problems  of  personnel  are  fully  con- 
sidered in  M.  Dehesdin,  Le  recrutement  et  V  avancement  des  magistrals  (Paris,  1908). 
The  judicial  system  is  severely  criticized  on  the  ground  of  lack  of  initiative  and  in- 
dependence in  E.  Faguet,  The  Dread  of  Responsibility,  trans,  by  E.  J.  Putnam  (New 
York,  1914).  But  the  charges  are  not  borne  out  by  the  facts.  See  the  reply  con- 
tained in  W.  Loubat,  "Les  idees  de'M.  Emile  Faguet  sur  la  justice  moderne,  in 
Rev.  Polit.  et  Pari.,  May,  1912,  and  in  comment  by  Garner  in  Airier.  Polit.  Set. 
Rev.,  May,  1915,  p.  400.  Reform  proposals  are  discussed  in  A.  Tissier,  "Le  projet 
de  reforme  judiciaire,"  in  Rev.  Polit.  et  Pari.,  June,  1916;  Demombynes,_  "La  re- 
forme  judiciaire,"  ibid.,  July,  1918;  and  J.  Appleton,  "La  reforme  judiciaire,  in 
Grand  Rev.,  Aug.,  191 9. 

1  Cf.  Goodnow,  Comparative  Administrative  Law,  I,  8-9. 


460  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

Ministry  of  the  Interior.  Under  this  plan  all  administrative 
matters,  including  matters  of  controversy,  are  determined  by  the 
administration  itself;  and  the  ordinary  courts  must  in  no  wise 
interfere  in  the  administration,  not  even  by  adjudicating  suits 
that  arise  between  it  and  individuals.  Nowhere  do  adminis- 
trative courts  play  a  more  important  role  than  in  France.  It  is 
true  that  the  theory  of  contentieux  administratij ',  or  administrative 
jurisdiction,  as  it  was  originated  in  France  about  1790,  was 
founded  on  the  desire  of  the  Revolutionists  to  free  the  adminis- 
trative authorities  from  the  control  of  the  judicial  tribunals, 
which  were  suspected  of  hostility  to  the  new  reforms,1  and  that, 
therefore,  the  system  was  designed  in  the  interest  rather  of  the 
government  than  of  the  citizen.  It  is  true,  too,  that  in  France 
nowadays,  as  an  American  writer  puts  it,  "  there  is  one  law  for 
the  citizen  and  another  for  the  public  official,  and  thus  the  exec- 
utive is  really  independent  of  the  judiciary,  for  the  government 
has  always  a  free  hand,  and  can  violate  the  law  if  it  wants  to  do 
so  without  having  anything  to  fear  from  the  ordinary  courts."  2 
But  it  is  also  true  that  the  original  purpose  has  become  obscured, 
and  that  the  administrative  tribunals  have  as  their  primary  object 
to-day  the  protection  of  the  individual  against  arbitrary  or 
illegal  administrative  acts. 

The  present  system  of  administrative  courts  dates  largely 
from  the  Napoleonic  period.  The  court  of  first  instance  in  all 
litigation  arising  out  of  the  application  of  administrative  law  is 
the  conseil  de  prefecture,  or  prefectural  council,  established  in 
1799.  One  such  council  exists  in  every  department,  under  the 
presidency  of  the  prefect.  The  prefectural  council  is  to  be  care- 
fully distinguished  from  the  departmental  conseil  generate,  or 
general  council.3  The  latter  is  elected  by  the  voters  of  the 
department  and  is  primarily  an  ordinance-making  body ;  the 
former  is  appointed  by  the  president  of  the  republic  and,  in 
addition  to  adjudicating  administrative  disputes,  advises  the 
prefect  on  executive  and  administrative  matters.  In  point  of 
fact,  the  prefect  largely  controls  the  administrative  decisions. 

Above  the  prefectural  councils  stands  the  Conseil  d'Etat,  or 
Council  of  State,  created  also  in  1799,  with  large  powers,  includ- 
ing the  "  adjustment  of  such  difficulties  as  arise  in  administra- 
tive matters."  The  earlier  legislative  functions  of  this  body 
have  been  taken  away,  and  the  Council  of  State  as  a  court  has 

1  Gamer,  "The  French  Judiciary,"  in  Yale  Law  Jour.,  Mar.,  1917,  pp.  350  351. 

2  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties  in  Continental  Europe,  I,  58. 

3  See  p.  473. 


LAW  AND   JUSTICE  461 

been  sharply  differentiated  from  the  Council  which  survives  as 
an  administrative  body.1  The  former  is  a  supreme  common  law 
tribunal  for  the  adjudication  of  administrative  disputes.  It  is  ■ 
composed  of  35  councilors  en  service  ordinaire,  21  councilors 
en  service  extraordinaire  (government  officials  deputed  to  guard 
the  interests  of  the  various  executive  departments),  37  maitres 
des  requetes,  and  40  auditors.2  Members  are  appointed  by  exec- 
utive decree,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  council  of 
ministers,  and  they  can  be  removed  only  in  the  same  manner. 
The  Council  is  required  to  consider  and  make  reply  to  all  ques- 
tions relating  to  administrative  affairs  which  the  government 
submits  to  it ;  and  in  all  administrative  cases  at  law  it  is,  as  has 
been  stated,  the  court  of  last  resort.3 

As  it  has  worked  out  in  the  past  half  century,  there  is  a  great 
deal  to  be  said  for  the  French  system  of  administrative  courts. 
The  rights  of  the  individual  are  adequately  protected  in  Eng- 
land under  a  different  plan,  but  it  can  at  least  be  argued  that 
under  the  French  system  an  individual  can  obtain  redress  in 
many  cases  where  he  cannot  do  so  in  England,  and  that  (with 
numerous  exceptions)  courts  composed  of  administrative  officials 
are  better  fitted  to  deal  with  the  law  governing  administrative 
questions  than  are  the  ordinary  courts.4  It  is  obviously  possibk 
for  the  government  to  bring  much  pressure  to  bear  on  the  admin- 
istrative courts;  they  are,  indeed,  part  of  the  government,  and' 
controllable  through  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior.  The  tempta^ 
tion  might,  indeed,  be  strong  if  the  matter  in  controversy  had  a 
political  bearing.  Experience,  however,  shows  that  the  admin- 
istrative courts  preserve  a  high  degree  of  independence,  that  the 
government  does  not  seek  to  extort  favorable  decisions,  and  that 
as  often  as  not  the  decisions  are  against  the  government  and  in 
favor  of  the  private  litigant.     The  Council  of  State,  says  a 

1  See  p.  400. 

2  These  numbers  are  changed  slightly  from  time  to  time. 

3  The  earlier  history  of  the  Council  of  State  is  fully  presented  in  E.  J.  Lafernere, 
Traite  de  la  jurisdiction  administrative  et  des  recours  contentieux  (Paris,  1887),  I, 
137-301.  On  the  organization  and  work  of  the  Council  see  Berthelemy,  Traite 
elementaire  de  droit  admin  ist  rati  f,  122-128;  and  Hauriou,  Precis  de  droit  admims- 
tratif  (8th  ed.),  229  f,  968  f ;  and  especially  J.  W.  Garner,  "  Judicial  Control  of  Ad- 
ministrative and  Legislative  Acts  in  France,"  in  Amer.  Pol  it.  Sa.  Rev.,  Nov.,  1915, 
and  G.  Jeze,  "Le  conseil  d'etat  au  contentieux,"  in  Rev.  Droit  Pub.  et  Sa.  P<git., 
Oct.-Dec,  1918.  Proposed  changes  are  considered  in  Varagnac,  "  Le  Conseil  d  Etat 
et  les  projets  de  reforme,"  in  Rev.  des  Deux  Mondes,  Aug.  15  and  Sept.  15,  1892  ; 
P.  de  Pressac,  "  Le  conseil  d'etat  et  les  innovations  necessaires,  in  Rev.  Gen.  d' Admin., 
May- June,  1919  ;  and  Duguit,  Law  in  the  Modern  State,  Chap.  v. 

4  These  matters  are  briefly  discussed  in  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  EL 
501-504. 


462  GOVERNMEN  rS  01     EUROPE 

principal  French  authority,  "has  been  working  out  a  body  of 
law  which  affords  to  the  individual  almost  perfecl  protec- 
tion against  arbitrary  administrative  action  a  higher  degree 
of  protection,  I  think  1  may  affirm,  than  in  any  other  country."  ' 
Under  the  Orleanisl  monarchy  and  the  Second  Empire,  the 
Liberals  urged  the  abolishment  of  administrative  jurisdiction. 
But  after  a  reorganization  of  the  Council  of  State  upon  a  -trictly 
judicial  basis  in  1872  the  movement  waned.  Confidence  in  the 
independence  and  fairness  of  the  administrative  courts  has  steadily 
increased,  and  of  late  tin-  people  prefer  to  submit  their  complaints 
directly  to  these  tribunals  in  cases  in  which  at  an  earlier  time 
they  would  have  applied  to  the  ordinary  courts. 

Numerous  disputes  arise  in  which  it  is  not  clear  whether  juris- 
diction belongs  to  the  one  kind  of  tribunals  or  to  the  other; 
besides,  it  is  desirable  to  have  some  authority  to  act  as  a  check 
upon  the  government  in  the  event  that  it  should  seek  to  force 
cases  into  the  administrative  courts.  Hence,  in  1872  a  Tribunal 
tics  Conflits,  or  Court  of  Conflicts,  was  created,  consisting  of  the 
Minister  of  Justice  as  ex-officio  president,  three  judges  of  the 
Court  of  Cassation  elected  by  their  colleagues,  three  members 
of  the  Council  of  State  elected  by  the  Council  itself,  and  two 
judges  chosen  by  the  foregoing  members.  All  conflicts  of 
authority  between  the  administrative  tribunals  and  the  judicial 
tribunals  are  determined  by  this  body  ;  and,  being  a  part  neither 
of  the  ordinary  judicial  organization  nor  of  the  administrative 
system,  it  fulfills  the  function  with  a  high  degree  of  impartiality 
and  success.2 

1  L.  Duguit,  "The  French  Administrative  Courts,"  in  Polit.  Set.  Quar.,  Sept. 
1914,  p.  393. 

2  Brief  accounts  of  the  French  administrative  courts  will  be  found  in  Lowell. 

land.  II,  494-504 ;  I  >uguit,  "The  French  Administrative  Courts," 
in  Polit.  Sri.  Quar.,  Sept.,  1914;  and  F.  P.  Walton,  "The  French  Administrative 
Courts  and  the  Modern  French  Law  as  to  the  Responsibility  of  the  State  for  the 
Faults  of  its  Officials,"  in  ///.  /.;;.-  Rev.,  Oct-Nov.,  roi8.  See  also  J.  \V.  Garner, 
"Judicial  Control  of  Administrative  and  Legislative  Aits  in  France,"  in  Amer. 
Polit.  Sci.  Rev.,  Nov.,  1915.  The  nature  of  administrative  acts,  the  field  of  ad- 
ministrative law.  and  the  numerous  problems  arising  from  the  French  system  of 
administrative  jurisdiction  are  freshly  and  lucidly  surveyed  in  Duguit,  Law  in  the 
Modern  State.      I  here  is  a  good  brief  discussion  in  Ashley,  Lot  al  and  Central  i 

Chap.  viii.  Berthflemy,  Traiti  iUmentaire  it  droit  administratif,  Jeze, 
Principes  gineroux  du  droit  administratif,  and  Laferriere,  Traiti  de  l<i  jurisdiction 
administrative  remain  the  standard  French  treatises.  See  Garner's  review  of  Jeze's 
second  edition,  in  Amer.  Polit.  Sri.  Rev.,  Aug.,  1915,  pp.  60S  612,  Mia  onceiving 
the  nature  of  the  French  administrative  tribunals,  the  English  ^<  holar  Dicey  passed 

and  unjust  judgment  upon  them  in  the  earlier  editions  of  his  Laic  and  Custom 
of  the  Constitution,  tor  his  later  and  fairer  views  see  the  preface  to  the  8th  edition 
(1915)- 


LAW   AND   JUSTICE  463 

The  Senate  as  a  High  Court  of  Justice.  —  It  has  been  pointed 
out  that  the  House  of  Lords  caps  the  British  judicial  system, 
being  not  only  (at  least  theoretically)  a  tribunal  for  the  trial  of 
peers  and  peeresses,  but  the  highest  court  of  appeal  in  all 
judicial  actions  except  such  as  come  up  from  the  ecclesiastical 
or  the  colonial  courts.  On  the  continent,  too,  second  chambers 
are  usually  endowed  with  judicial  powers,  although  there  the 
appellate  feature  rarely  appears  and  the  chamber  is  made  rather 
a  sole,  extraordinary  tribunal  for  the  trial  of  certain  kinds  of 
cases,  mainly  political,  or  cases  affecting  certain  classes  of  people. 
The  French  constitution  of  1875  provides  that  "  the  Senate  may 
be  constituted  a  court  of  justice  to  try  the  president  of  the  re- 
public or  the  ministers,  and  to  take  cognizance  of  attempts  on 
the  safety  of  the  state."  *  The  president  can  be  brought  to  trial 
only  before  the  Senate,  and  only  by  action  of  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies.  Similarly,  the  Senate  has  exclusive  jurisdiction  of 
cases  involving  ministers  "  accused  by  the  Chamber  of  Deputies 
of  crimes  committed  in  the  exercise  of  their  functions  "  ;  -  for 
offenses  not  committed  in  the  exercise  of  their  official  duties, 
ministers  are  amenable  to  the  ordinary  courts,  except  in  so  far 
as  protected  by  their  immunities  as  members  of  Parliament.3 

For  the  trial  of  cases  involving  alleged  attacks  on  the  safety  of 
the  state,  the  Senate  is  constituted  a  high  court  of  justice  by 
decree  of  the  president  of  the  republic,  issued  in  ministerial 
council ;  and  jurisdiction  extends  equally  to  public  officers  and 
private  individuals.  But  the  decree  constituting  the  Senate  a 
high  court  is  purely  optional,  and  the  jurisdiction  of  the  ordinary 
courts  remains  unaffected.  When  organized  as  a  court,  the 
Senate  has  full  power  to  summon  witnesses,  punish  persons  who 
refuse  to  appear,  administer  oaths,  and  obtain  evidence  by  every 
means  that  can  be  legally  employed  by  the  ordinary  courts. 
The  essentially  political  nature  of  the  Senate's  functions  as  a 
court  is  apparent.  The  chamber  is  itself  a  political  body;  its 
judicial  activities  are  intended  to  have  a  more  or  less  political, 
although  legitimate  public,  object ;  the  government  is  constantly 
subject  to  the  temptation  to  utilize  the  High  Court  for  illegiti- 
mate political  ends.  Despite  numerous  proposals,  however, 
that  the  existing  arrangements  be  drastically  modified,  it  is 
still  the  opinion  of  most  French  jurists  and  publicists  that  the 
system  has  not  been  abused  and  that  it  is  a  desirable  safeguard 

1  Law  on  the  Organization  of  the  Senate,  Art.  9. 

2  Law  on  the  Relations  of  the  Public  Powers,  Art.  12. 

3  See  p.  403. 


464  GOVERNMENTS  01    EUROPE 

of  the  public  well-being.  In  point  of  fact,  the  sittings  of  the 
Senate  as  a  court  are  infrequent.  The  mosl  notable  trials  eon- 
ducted  before  the  body  in  recent  years  were  those  of  the  former 
Minister  i>\  the  Interior,  Malvy,  in  [918,  and  ex-Premier  Caillanx 
in  1920;  perhaps  the  mosl  notable  in  earlier  times  was  the  trial 
of  Boulanger  and  his  accomplices  in  1889.1 

1  The  High  Court  is  briefly  described  in  Esmein,  IZltments  <l<  droit  constitutionnel 

(ith  ed.),  888-000,  and  Bard  el  [Sobriquet,  Constitution  franqaist  it  1875,  258-274. 

Roux,  "  I.'AtTair  Malvy  et  le pouvoir souverain du  S6nat  comme Haute-Cour 

de  fustice,"  in  Rev.  Polit.ct  Pari.,  Dec,  rgi8;  L.  Duguit,  "L'Arrfcf  du  Sendal  ans 

I'affaire  Malvy,"  ibid.,  Aug.,  1919;   P.  Vergnet,  VAjfoire  Caillanx  (Paris,  1919). 


CHAPTER   XXVI 
LOCAL   GOVERNMENT  AND   ADMINISTRATION 

Conditions  before  1789. —  Students  of  political  science  are 
familiar  with  the  fact  that  governmental  systems  are,  as  a  rule, 
less  stable  at  the  top  than  at  the  bottom.  Local  institutions, 
imbedded  in  the  interests  of  the  community  and  supported  by 
the  native  conservatism  of  the  ordinary  man,  strike  root  deeply  ; 
the  central,  national  agencies  of  law  making  and  of  administra- 
tion are  played  upon  by  larger,  more  unsettling  forces,  with  the 
result  of  considerably  increasing  the  probability  of  change.  The 
history  of  modern  France  affords  notable  illustration  of  this 
principle.  Between  1789  and  1875  the  French  national  govern- 
ment was  remarkably  unstable.  During  most  of  this  same  pe- 
riod, however,  the  institutions  of  local  government  and  adminis- 
tration underwent  only  slight  change ;  indeed,  the  system  in 
operation  to-day  differs  but  little  structurally  from  that  set  up  a 
century  and  a  quarter  ago.  The  origins  of  this  system,  it  is 
true,  are  to  be  traced  to  revolution.  In  most  of  its  essentials 
it  was  created  by  the  National  Assembly  of  1 789  and  by  Napoleon, 
and  it  rose  upon  the  wreckage  of  a  system  which  had  lasted 
through  many  centuries  of  Capetian  and  Bourbon  rule.  Once 
established,  however,  it  proved  sufficiently  workable  to  be  per- 
petuated under  every  one  of  the  governmental  regimes  which, 
between  1800  and  the  present  day,  have  filled  their  successive 
places  in  the  history  of  the  nation. 

Prior  to  the  Revolution,  the  French  administrative  system  was 
centralized,  bureaucratic,  wasteful,  and  inefficient.  The  old 
provinces  had  largely  lost  their  importance,  especially  those  in 
the  three  quarters  of  the  country  comprising  the  pays  d' elec- 
tion, where  provincial  assemblies  either  had  never  existed  or 
were  no  longer  convened.  The  provinces  in  the  remaining  por- 
tions of  the  kingdom,  known  as  the  pays  d'etats,  had  more  auton- 
omy and  were  more  important ;  for  the  assemblies  voted  taxes, 
and  even  controlled  part  of  the  expenditures.  Yet  even  here  the 
old  vigor  was  wholly  lacking.  From  having  been  the  local  mili- 
tary commanders  and  the  direct  representatives  of  the  king  for  a 
wide  variety  of  purposes,  the  governors  had  become  inactive 

2H  46S 


466  GOVERNMENTS  01     EUROPE 

pensioners.  Replacing  the  old  province  for  administrative  pur- 
poses  was  now  the  gSniraliU,  a  jurisdiction  at  first  purely 
fiscal,  but  later  also  judicial  and  administrative-  created  as 
early  as  the  sixteenth  century.  During  the  eighteenth  century 
the  uumberof  generalites  varied  from  thirty  to  forty ;  in  1780  there 
were  thirty-two.  In  each  was  an  intendant  de  justice,  <lr  polite 
ct  de finances ,  who  controlled  practically  everything  in  the  name 
of  the  king,  either  directly  or  through  his  agents,  the  sub-dilSgtUs. 
The  one  local  division  that  preserved  any  real  autonomy  was  the 
commune.  The  communal  constitution  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury seemed,  indeed,  democratic.  There  was  a  primary  assem- 
bly, composed  of  all  inhabitants  who  were  liable  to  the  taillc : 
and  this  body  elected  communal  officers,  cared  for  communal 
property,  and  regulated  local  affairs.  In  point  of  fact,  however, 
the  assembly's  independence  was,  as  a  rule,  illusory.  The 
intendant  or  his  agents  dictated  or  controlled  almost  its  every 
act ;  which  means  that  of  true  local  government  there  was  in 
pre-Revolutionary  France  little  or  none.' 

Revolutionary  and  Napoleonic  Changes.  When  the  National 
Assembly,  in  1789,  addressed  itself  to  the  reformation  of  local 
government,  if  did  so  in  no  faltering  spirit.  The  communes  — 
the  little  semi-political,  semi-social  community  groups  that  had 
grown  up  through  the  centuries  —  were  somewhat  rearranged, 
but  in  general  were  allowed  to  stand,  to  the  number  of  some  forty- 
four  thousand.  But  the  old  provinces  and  generalites  were 
abolished  and  in  their  stead  was  erected  a  system  of  dcparlc- 
ments,  districts,  and  cantons.  Eighty-three  departments  were 
created,  each  divided  into  about  half  a  dozen  districts  (544  in 
all) ;  each  district  was  cut  into  ten  or  a  dozen  cantons  (6840  in 
all) ;  and  the  cantons,  in  turn,  were  made  up  of  varying  numbers 
of  communes.  The  most  striking  features  of  the  system  were 
its  symmetry  and  its  detachment  from  history  and  tradition. 
The  departments  were  so  laid  out  as  to  be  substantially  equal 
in  size ;  and  little  attention  was  paid  to  ancient  boundary  lines 
and  social  cleavages,  or  to  physical  demarcations.  '  The  new 
departments,  districts,  and  cantons  had  no  history,  no  associa- 
tions, no  inner  life  or  bond  of  common  feeling,  and  presented  a 
smooth  blank  surface  upon  which  the  legislator  might  impress 
whatever  pattern  bethought  proper."5     Such  a  deliberate  blot- 

1  For  ;i  brief  description  of  !'><;il  government  in  France  before  the  Revolution 

lent   History,   VIII.   37-46.      Two   important    treatises  are   A. 
V  sous  Vancien  regime  (Paris,  1880),  and  A.  Luchaire,  Les  communes 
franqaiscs  (Paris,  1890). 

2  Cambridge  Modem  History,  VIII,  190. 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  AND  ADMINISTRATION    467 

ting  out  of  the  old  areas  of  local  government  would  be  very  un- 
likely to  take  place  in  England  ;  although  even  there,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  Local  Government  Acts  of  1888  and  1894  introduced 
certain  drastic  changes.1  The  elements  that  came  into  control 
in  1789  in  France,  however,  were  prepared  to  sweep  away  every 
name  and  form  which  could  not  easily  be  separated  in  the  public 
mind  from  the  absolutist  regime. 

For  the  time  being,  furthermore,  ultra-democratic  ideals  were 
in  the  ascendant,  and  the  measures  of  1789-90,  reenforced  by  the 
constitution  of  1791,  transferred  at  a  stroke  almost  the  entire 
control  of  local  affairs  from  the  agents  of  the  crown  to  the  elected 
representatives  of  the  new  areas.  The  governing  authorities 
of  the  new  department  became:  (1)  a  deliberative  council  of 
thirty-six  persons,  elected  by  manhood  suffrage  for  a  term  of 
two  years ;  (2)  an  executive  directory,  consisting  of  nine  of  the 
councilors;  and  (3)  a  procureur  general,  elected  by  the  people 
for  four  years,  but  wielding  slender  authority.  The  district  was 
given  a  similar  but  smaller  council  and  directory,  and  the  com- 
mune was  provided  with  an  elective  mayor  and  council.2 

Experience  proved  that  the  reformers  had  gone  too  far  in  the 
direction  both  of  democracy  and  of  decentralization.  Upon  the 
reestablishment  of  order  after  the  fall  of  Robespierre,  the  rule 
of  official  experts  was  revived,  and  with  it  a  large  amount  of 
centralized  supervision  and  control.  The  constitution  of  the 
Year  III  (1795)  preserved  the  elective  principle,  but  abolished 
the  districts,  revived  the  cantons  (which  had  been  suppressed 
two  years  earlier)  and  made  them  the  basal  administrative 
divisions,  introduced  a  new  class  of  "  cantonal  municipalities," 
and  in  other  ways  reconstructed  the  machinery  of  local  govern- 
ment and  administration,  with  a  view  mainly  to  a  more  general 
and  wholesome  control  by  the  National  Directory  at  Paris.3 
Only  towns  having  a  population  of  five  thousand  or  more  retained 
their  separate  communal  organization ;  those  that  were  smaller 
were  merged  in  the  reorganized  cantons,  whose  governing  body 
was  made  up  of  adjoints,  or  "  assistants,"  representing  the  petty 
communes.  On  the  other  hand,  towns  having  a  population 
exceeding  one  hundred  thousand  were  formed  into  at  least  three 
municipal  units. 

Under  the  Napoleonic  regime,  the  country  came  back  to  a 

1  See  p.  225. 

2  For  the  text  of  the  Decret  sur  les  Municipalites  of  December  14,  1789,  see 
Helie,   Constitutions,    59-72.     An   English   version   is  in   Anderson,  Constitutions, 

24-33- 

3  Anderson,  Constitutions,  233-236. 


468  GOVERNMEN  rS   01     El  R0P1 

scheme  of  thoroughgoing  centralization.  The  commune  w;i> 
re  .tored  as  the  basal  administrative  unit,  and  the  canton  became 
a  judicial  district.1  lint  the  mayor,  adj (tints  (assistants),  and 
the  members  of  the  communal  council  were  no  longer  elected  by 
the  people,  but  instead  were  appointed  by  the  <  entral  government, 
directly  or  through  its  departmental  agents.  A  great  law  of 
February  17.  1800,  established  in  each  department  a  prefect, 
appointed  by  the  First  Consul,  responsible  only  to  him,  and  en- 
dowed with  hardly  less  extensive  powers  than  the  intendailt 
had  wielded  under  the  ancietl  rigime.  The  term  "  prefect  " 
was  Roman,  and  it  served  to  emphasize  the  <  lose  kinship  between 
the  Napoleonic  and  Roman  administrative  systems.  The  gen- 
eral council  of  the  department  was  preserved,  but  its  sixteen  to 
twenty-lour  members  were  henceforth  to  be  named  for  a  term  of 
three  years  by  the  First  Consul.  Each  department,  further- 
more, was  divided  for  administrative  purposes  into  arrondisse- 
ments,  resembling  the  districts  created  in  1789,  and  in  each  of 
these  was  placed  a  sub-prefect  and  a  council  of  eleven  members, 
likewise  appointive.  The  sub-prefect  served  as  a  local  deputy 
of  the  prefect,  and  one  of  his  principal  duties  was  to  assist  in  the 
continuous  and  close  supervision  of  the  affairs  of  the  communes 
in  his  jurisdiction.2 

From  Napoleon  to  the  Third  Republic.  The  Napoleonic 
administrative  system  —  simple,  symmetrical,  bureaucratic,  and 
highly  centralized  —  has  survived  in  most  of  its  features  to  the 
present  day.''  The  fall  of  the  Corsican  from  power  brought  no 
considerable  change,  and  none  took  place  until  after  the  revolu- 
tion of  1830.  De  Tocqueville's  studies  of  American  democracy 
aroused  a  strong  sentiment,  however,  in  favor  of  a  larger  auton- 
omy for  the  departments  and  communes,  and  under  the  Or- 
leanist  monarchy  the  rigor  of  the  Napoleonic  system  was  some- 
what relaxed.  A  law  of  1831  made  the  municipal  council 
elective;   one  of  1833  did  the  same  thing  for  the  councils  of  the 

1  The  number  of  communes  was  now  reduced  from  44,000  to  aboul  $6,000. 

'-'  Anderson,  Constitutions,  283-288.     (>.  Alix,  "Les  origines  du  Iminis- 

tratif  francais,"  in  Ann.  des  Sci.  Polit.,  July-Nov.,  1899. 

3  Its  influence  upon  the  administrative  system    oi  othi intries       Belgium, 

Italy,  Spain,  and  even  Greece,  Japan,  and  various  Latin-American  states  —  has 
been  profound.  "Judged  by  its  qualities  of  permanence  and  by  its  influence 
abroad,  the  law  of  i.Soo  is  one  ofthebesl  examples  of  Bonaparte's*  n  ative  statesman- 
ship, taking  rank  with  the  Code  and  with  the  Concordat  among  his  enduring  non- 
military'  achievements.  If,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  England  has  been  the  mother 
of  parliaments  and  has  exercised  a  dominant  influence  upon  the  evolution  of  nat  ional 
governments,  France  has  had  an  equally  important  role  in  molding  systems  of 
local  administration  among  the  nations."     Munro,  Governm  nt  of  European  Cities,  1. 


LOCAL   GOVERNMENT  AND   ADMINISTRATION     469 

department  and  the  arrondissement ;  and  both  measures  estab- 
lished a  reasonably  liberal  suffrage.  In  i8-;8  the  powers  of  the 
two  councils  were  increased.1 

At  the  establishment  of  the  Second  Republic,  in  1848,  the 
essentials  of  the  administrative  system  then  prevailing  were  re 
tained.  It  was  enacted  merely  that  the  various  councils  should 
be  elected  on  a  basis  of  manhood  suffrage,  and  that  in  communes 
of  fewer  than  sLx  thousand  inhabitants  the  council  should  elect 
the  mayor  and  the  adjoints,  while  in  the  larger  ones  appointment 
should  be  made,  as  before,  by  the  central  authorities.  Upon 
the  conversion,  in  1851-52,  of  the  Second  Republic  into  the 
Second  Empire,  the  decentralizing  tendency,  however,  was  once 
more  checked.  Throughout  the  reign  of  Napoleon  III  the  com- 
munal council  continued  to  be  elected,  at  least  nominally,  by 
manhood  suffrage.  But  so  thoroughgoing  was  the  prefectural 
supervision  that  the  councils  retained  very  little  initiative  or 
independence  of  action.  Even  the  privilege  which  the  smaller 
communes  enjoyed  of  choosing  their  own  mayors  was  lost ; 
while  by  a  decree  of  March  25,  1852,  the  powers  of  the  prefect 
in  communal  affairs  were  substantially  extended.  Under  the 
Second  Empire  the  prefect  was  more  truly  than  ever  before  the 
pivot  of  the  administrative  system  ;  and,  despite  the  survival  of 
elective  councils  in  the  departments,  the  arrondissements,  and 
the  communes,  local  automony  again  practically  disappeared. 

General  Aspects  since  1871.  —  The  establishment  of  the  Third 
Republic  brought  few  immediate  changes.  Even  at  a  time  of 
extreme  political  unsettlement,  when  the  liberal  elements  were 
planning  drastic  reorganizations  in  almost  every  direction,  there 
was  little  demand  for  a  wholly  reconstructed  system  of  local  gov- 
ernment ;  rather,  it  was  assumed  that,  in  its  structure  at  all 
events,  the  existing  system  would  be  continued.  One  thing, 
however,  was  widely  desired,  namely,  larger  freedom  for  the  com- 
munes. The  National  Assembly  took  up  this  question  promptly, 
but  in  a  spirit  of  extreme  caution,  and  the  most  that  could  be 
obtained  at  once  was  a  revival  of  the  plan  adopted  in  1848, 
which  permitted  the  smaller  communes  to  select  their  own  mayors 
and  adjoints.  Even  this  concession  was  recalled  in  1874,  although 
the  Parliament  elected  in  1876  restored  it.  Agitation,  however, 
continued,  and  at  length,  in  March,  1882,  a  law  was  passed  which 
allowed  all  communes  (except  Paris),  regardless  of  size,  to  select 
their  mayors  and  adjoints  without  outside  interference.2     Even 

xThe  texts  of  these  acts  are  in  Helie,  Constitutions,  1019-1050. 
2Duvergier,  Collection  complete  des  lois,  LXXXII,  116-11S. 


470  GOVERNMENTS   OF  EUROPE 

before  this  time,  a  general  revision  and  codification  of  local  gov- 
ernmental law,  such  as  had  last  been  undertaken  in  1837,  was 
sorely  needed,  and  after  the  act  of  1882  was  placed  on  the  statute 
book  the  attention  of  Parliament  was  turned  afresh  to  the  sub- 
ject. Some  delay  arose  from  the  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the 
extent  to  which  the  principle  of  "  home  rule  "  should  be  applied 
in  the  proposed  code.  But  shortly  before  the  close  of  1883  the 
task  of  revising  and  unifying  the  entire  body  of  municipal  law 
was  referred  to  a  special  commission  of  nine  members.  The 
commission  reported  early  in  1884,  and  the  code  which  it  produced 
was,  with  some  changes,  adopted  by  Parliament  and,  on  April  5, 
promulgated  as  law.  This  hi  snr  V organisation  municipale, 
in  157  articles,  is  a  remarkably  comprehensive,  yet  simple  and 
lucid,  instrument.1  It  does  not  apply  to  Paris ;  but  elsewhere 
throughout  France  it  is  still,  with  only  minor  modifications, 
the  basis  of  all  village,  town,  and  city  government.2 

The  several  geographical  divisions  of  the  country  which  are 
employed  for  governmental  purposes  have  always  appeared  in 
two  quite  different  aspects.  On  the  one  hand,  they  are  areas 
arranged  and  utilized  by  the  national  government  for  purposes 
of  its  own  administrative  work.  They  are  like  customs  districts 
or  internal  revenue  districts  in  our  own  country,  which  are  in 
charge  of  officers  who  are  officers  of  the  central  government  and 
who  exercise  only  powers  that  are  powers  of  the  central  govern- 
ment. On  the  other  hand,  the  divisions  —  at  all  events  the  de- 
partments and  communes  —  are  areas  which  have  governments 
of  their  own,  with  legislative  councils  which  make  local  laws, 
with  administrative  officers  who  apply  these  laws,  with  separate 
budgets  and  separate  "  services  "  —  in  short,  areas  that  have  been 
endowed  by  the  state  with  substantial  governmental  autonomy. 
In  point  of  fact,  the  function  of  representing  and  acting  for  the 
central  government  in  the  department  or  commune  falls  to  the 
same  persons  who  carry  on  the  area's  separate  and  local  govern- 
mental work.  But  the  dual  aspect  of  the  situation  remains ; 
indeed,  the  whole  character  of  the  prefect's  or  the  mayor's 
office  hinges  on  the  officer's  possession  of  two  distinct  sets  of 
functions  which  sometimes  tend  to  be  more  or  less  incompatible. 

Looking  back  over  the  successive  stages  of  local  governmental 
development  in  France,  one  notes  that  the  supercentralized  Na- 
poleonic system  has  been  liberalized  and  brought  more  within 
the  control  of  the  people  of  the  various  communities  by  three 

1  Duvergier,  Colic*  lion  compute  dcs  lois,  LXXXIV,  99-148. 

2  Munro,  Government  of  European  Cities,  12. 


LOCAL   GOVERNMENT  AND  ADMINISTRATION     471 

main  processes  :  (1)  the  substitution  of  popular  election  of  local 
officials,  under  a  gradually  widened  franchise,  for  appointment 
by  the  central  authorities ;  (2)  the  enlargement  of  the  powers 
of  the  locally  elected  bodies,  especially  the  legislative  powers  of 
the  departmental  and  communal  councils ;  and  (3)  an  increase 
of  the  range  of  independent  action,  without  consultation  with  the 
authorities  at  Paris,  of  the  local  agents  of  the  central  govern- 
ment. The  first  two  processes  involve  real  decentralization ; 
the  central  government  surrenders  powers  to  the  local  bodies, 
and,  through'  them,  to  the  people.  The  third  process  involves, 
rather,  what  the  French  call  deconcentration ;  powers  remain  in 
the  hands  of  the  representatives  of  the  central  governments  as 
such,  yet  they  may  be  exercised  more  freely,  more  expeditiously, 
and  perchance  more  in  accordance  with  local  sentiment  or  de- 
sire than  before.  Decentralization  has  thus  far  been  applied 
principally  to  the  commune,  which  has  a  vigorous  political  life 
of  its  own.  The  department  and  its  administrative  subdivision, 
the  arrondissement,  have  been  to  some  extent  "  deconcentrated," 
but  they  remain  primarily  geographical  circumscriptions  of  the 
national  administration  —  areas  within  which  the  general  govern- 
ment, acting  through  its  own  agents,  brings  home  to  the  people 
the  force  and  beneficence  of  its  authority.  France,  therefore, 
presents  the  spectacle  of  a  nation  broadly  democratic  in  its  con- 
stitution, its  central  government,  and  its  local  organs  of  legisla- 
tion, yet  more  highly  centralized  in  its  administrative  arrange- 
ments than  any  other  principal  state  of  western  Europe.  Not 
only  is  central  control  far  greater  than  in  England ;  it  is  not 
split  up  among  a  half  dozen  scattered  branches  of  the  national 
government,  as  it  is  there,  but  is  gathered  in  the  hands  of  a  single 
great  directing  agency  at  Paris,  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior.1 

A  notable  consequence  of  the  centralization  of  administration 
is  uniformity  of  machinery  and  methods.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  passion  for  uniformity  and  symmetry  has  been  one  of  the 
sustaining  forces  of  centralization.  Frenchmen  in  all  parts  of 
the  country  live  under  the  same  system  of  local  government  and 
administration,  elect  the  same  kinds  of  local  councils,  submit 
to  the  authority  of  the  same  kinds  of  local  officers,  have  dealings 
with  the  same  kinds  of  agents  of  the  government  at  Paris,  and 
to  a  very  large  extent  pay  the  same  taxes  and  obey  the  same  laws. 
It  would  be  natural  for  the  arrondissements  and  cantons  to  be 
uniformly  organized  and  administered.     They  are  not  political, 

1  Berthelemy,  Traite  elemcnlaire  de  droit  administratif  (4th  ed.),  93.     For  further 
references  see  p.  472,  below. 


472  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

self-governing  divisions.  But  the  departments  also  arc  organized 
under  general  laws  and  in  an  absolutely  uniform  manner,  not- 
withstanding their  natural  dissimilarities  and  their  modest  but  not 
gible  political  powers;  and  — what  is  more  extraordinary- 
thousands  of  communes,  large  and  small,  urban  and  rural, 
industrial  and  agricultural,  are  also  governed  under  a  system 
which,  in  its  fundamentals,  permits  practically  no  variations.  All 
communes  are  organized  in  accordance  with  the  code  of  1884, 
and,  as  will  appear,  the  only  flexibility  in  the  system  is  such  as 
arises  from  automatic  adaptation,  within  a  limited  range,  of  the 
number  of  adjoints  (with  their  subordinates)  and  of  councilors 
to  the  population  of  the  commune ;  the  organs  of  government, 
their  functions  and  interrelations,  are  everywhere  the  same. 
"  Much  is  said  in  the  United  States,"  remarks  an  American  writer, 
"  about  the  impossibility  of  providing,  in  a  general  charter  law, 
for  the  satisfactory  administration  of  all  classes  of  cities.  How, 
then,  would  the  legislators  of  an  American  state  regard  a  proposal 
to  establish  a  uniform  framework  of  administration  applicable 
not  only  to  all  cities  of  whatever  size,  but  to  towns  and  villages 
as  well?  This,  nevertheless,  is  what  the  French  municipal  code 
has  done,  and  with  no  very  evil  results."1  It  is,  of  course,  to  be 
observed  that  conditions  in  France  have  been  more  favorable  for 
the  successful  operation  of  such  a  system  than  in  the  United 
States,  or  perhaps  anywhere  else.  The  country  is  predominantly 
rural;  the  population  has  grown  very  slowly  and  is  exception- 
ally homogeneous ;  and  strong  and  uniform  control  by  the  cen- 
tral government  is  supported  by  a  tradition  which  nowhere 
exists  in  English-speaking  countries.2 

Local  Government  To-day :  Department,  Arrondissement, 
and  Canton.  —  For  administrative  purposes,  the  republic  was 
first  of  all  divided,  up  to  the  close  of  the  Great  War,  into  86 
departments,  in  addition  to  the  "  territory  "  of  Belfort,  a  rem- 
nant oTthat  department  of  the  Upper  Rhine  which  Germany 
largely  absorbed  in  1871.3     Since  1881   the  three  departments 

1  Munro,  Government  of  European  Cities,  14-15. 

-  A  useful  history  of  the  French  administrative  system  is  E.  Monnet,  Histoire 

de  I 'administration  provinciate,  departementale  et  communale  en  France  (Paris,  1885). 

The  system  is  compared  with  other  systems  in  P.  Leroy-Beaulieu,  Administration 

locale  en  France  et  en  Angleterre  (Paris,  1872) ;  P.  Ashley,  Local  and  Central  Goverri- 

ment  (London,  coo6) ;  and  F.  J.  Goodnow,  Comparative  Administratis  Law  (  id  ed., 

fork,  (903).     The  best  systematic  description  is  Berth61emy,  Traite  Olement- 

droit  adminislralif.     For  reference    on  decentralization  see  p.  1.83,  below. 

3  The  number  of  departments  was  brought  up  to  this  figure  as  a  result  of  slight 

changes  at  intervals  during  the  nineteenth  century.     The  description  here  given 

no  account  of  the  recovery  of  Alsace-Lorraine  by  France  at  the  close  of  the 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  AND   ADMINISTRATION    473 

of  Algeria  have  been  treated,  for  most  purposes,  as  part  of 
France  proper.  At  the  head  of  each  department  is  a  prefect, 
appointed  for  no. fixed  term,  and  removable  nominally  by  the 
president  of  the  republic,  but  in  reality  by  the  Minister  of  the 
Interior.  The  prefect  is  by  far  the  most  important  of  all  local 
officials,  and  is,  of  course,  at  the  same  time  an  agent  of  the  central 
government  and  the  executive  head  of  the  department  in  the 
management  of  local  affairs.  As  agent  of  the  general  government 
he  acts,  in  some  instances,  upon  detailed  instructions ;  in  others, 
he  enjoys  a  wide  range  of  discretion.  His  powers  extend  to  practi- 
cally all  public  matters  affecting  the  department.  He  supervises 
the  execution  of  the  national  laws ;  he  maintains  a  vigorous  con- 
trol over  all  national  administrative  officials  in  the  department, 
even  to  the  extent  of  annulling  their  acts ;  he  gives  the  authori- 
ties at  Paris  information  and  advice  concerning  the  affairs  of  the 
department ;  he  nominates  to  a  variety  of  subordinate  offices ; 
he  watches  over  the  communes,  whose  measures  in  many  cases 
become  effective  only  after  receiving  his  assent ;  he  issues  by-laws, 
or  ordinances.  His  discretion  has  been  increased  in  many  direc- 
tions, and  nowadays  there  are  few,  if  any,  local  officials  in  any 
country  whose  authority  is  so  great.  Being  essentially  a  political 
officer,  he  is  liable  to  sudden  termination  of  his  tenure  by  a  change 
of  ministries  at  Paris.  Ordinarily,  however,  such  changes  have 
little  effect  outside  the  capital. 

The  prefect  is  assisted  by  a  secretary-general,  by  various  bu- 
reaus of  employees,  and  by  a  conscil  de  prefecture,  appointed  by  the 
central  government.  This  prefectural  council,  consisting  as  a 
rule  of  three  persons,  audits  accounts,  advises  the  prefect,  and 
serves  as  a  court  of  first  instance  in  the  trial  of  cases  arising  under 
administrative  law.  The  prefect  is  not  obliged  to  take  its  ad- 
vice ;  and  as  a  rule  he  has  a  controlling  part  in  its  handling  of 
administrative  cases,  notwithstanding  that  he  is  often  a  party 
to  them.1  Visiting  the  chief  town  of  a  department,  one  can  hardly 
fail  to  observe  an  imposing,  well-kept  building  before  which  the 
tricolor  is  flying,  and  bearing  in  large  letters  the  word  "Prefec- 
ture." It  is  in  this  departmental  capitol  that  one  will  find  the 
quarters  of  the  prefect  and  the  various  offices  or  bureaus  of  the 
prefecture. 

As  executive  head  of  the  department,  the  prefect  is  required 
to  work  with  a  conseil  general,  or  representative  assembly,  whose 

Great  War.     Arrangements  Eor  local  government  in  the  regained  lands  were  in- 
complete at  the  time  of  writing  (1920). 
1  See  p.  460. 


474  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

place  of  meeting  is  likewise  found  in  the  prefectural  building. 
The  prefect's  principal  function  in  this  capacity  is  to  see  to  the 
enforcement  of  the  council's  orders.  The  council  is  elected  by 
manhood  suffrage  under  a  scheme  which  gives  each  canton  one 
representative.  The  term  of  members  is  six  years,  and  half  re- 
tire triennially.  In  accordance  with  the  French  tradition  in  such 
matters,  all  are  unpaid.  The  powers  of  the  assembly  are  not 
extensive ;  aside  from  apportioning  the  direct  taxes  among  the 
arrondissements,  they  relate  mainly  to  the  construction  and  up- 
keep of  highways,  bridges,  canals,  school  buildings,  and  asylums. 
Under  law  of  187 1  a  council  may  not  vote  upon  any  question  of 
a  political  character  —  a  fact  of  which  the  prefect  is  likely  to  re- 
mind the  members  if  their  discussions  indicate  that  they  have 
forgotten  it.  There  are  but  two  regular  sessions  a  year.  The 
first,  held  soon  after  Easter,  is  devoted  to  general  matters,  and 
is  limited  to  fifteen  days;  the  second,  held  in  the  early  autumn, 
is  devoted  to  the  budget  (which  is  prepared  by  the  prefect), 
and  may  last  a  month.  During  the  intervals  between  sessions 
the  council  is  represented  by  a  commission  departementale,  or  per- 
manent delegation,  of  from  four  to  seven  members,  which  meets 
once  a  month  to  deal  with  current  affairs.  The  measures  of  both 
the  council  and  this  commission  may  be  vetoed  by  the  central 
government;  and  under  certain  conditions  the  council  can  be 
dissolved  by  the  same  authority.  As  the  status  of  the  council 
abundantly  proves,  the  department  remains  an  essentially  arti- 
ficial unit,  valuable  chiefly  as  a  subsidiary  of  the  central  adminis- 
tration. During  the  century  and  a  quarter  of  its  existence  it 
has  not  become  —  indeed  has  been  deliberately  prevented  from 
becoming  —  a  sphere  of  forceful,  independent  governmental 
activity.1 

Next  to  the  departments  stand  the  arrondissements,  or  districts, 
of  which  there  were  on  the  eve  of  the  Great  War  362.  Except 
those  in  the  department  of  the  Seine,  and  such  others  as  contain 
the  capitals  of  departments,  each  has  in  its  chief  town  a  sub- 
prefect,  who  is  appointed  by  the  president  of  the  republic,  and 
who  serves  as  a  district  representative  of  the  prefect.  Each 
has  a  conseil  d'arrondissement,  or  arrondissemcnt  council,  consist- 

1  The  monumental  treatise  on  the  department  is  G.  Bouffet  et  L.  Perier,  Trailc 
(hi  de  par  lenient,  2  vols.  (Paris,  1894-95).  See  also  G.  Dethan,  De  V organisation  des 
conseils  generaux  (Paris,  1889);  A.  Nectoux,  Des  attributions  des  conseillers  generaux 
1  Paris,  1895);  ana<  P-  Chardenet,  Les  elections  dSpartementales  (Paris,  1895). 
Excellent  brief  statements  will  be  found  in  Berthelemy,  Trailr  ilcmrntairc  de  droit 
administratif  (4th  ed.),  132-175,  and  M.  Block,  Dictionnaire  de  I' administration 
francaise  (5th  ed.,  Paris  and  Nancy,  1905),  I,  933-948,  1101-1116. 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  AND  ADMINISTRATION     475 

ing  of  at  least  nine  members,  elected  by  manhood  suffrage  for  a 
term  of  six  years.  But  since  the  arrondissement  has  no  corporate 
personality,  no  property,  and  no  budget,  the  council  has  only  one 
important  function,  namely,  to  allot  to  the  communes  their 
quotas  of  the  taxes  assigned  to  the  arrondissement  by  the  general 
council  of  the  department.  Speaking  strictly,  the  arrondisse- 
ment is  not  an  area  of  local  self-government  at  all.  It  has  no 
political  character,  but  is  merely  an  administrative  jurisdiction 
of  the  central  government.  It  derives  importance  also,  however, 
from  being  normally  the  seat  of  a  court  of  first  instance.  From 
1875  to  1885,  and  again  from  1889  to  191 9,  the  arrondissement 
was,  in  addition,  the  electoral  district  for  the  Chamber  of  Deputies. 
The  area  now  employed  for  this  purpose  is,  however,  the  depart- 
ment.1 

The  canton  is  an  electoral  and  a  judicial,  but  not  strictly  an 
administrative,  unit.  It  is  the  area  from  which  the  members  of 
both  the  departmental  general  council  and  the  council  of  the 
arrondissement  are  chosen,  and  it  forms  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
justice  of  the  peace.  The  total  number  of  cantons  was,  in  1914, 
291 1.  Most  of  them  contain  about  a  dozen  communes,  although 
a  few  of  the  larger  communes  are  divided  into  a  number  of 
cantons. 

Local  Government  To-day :  the  Commune.  —  From  the  point 
of  view  of  popular  self-government,  far  the  most  important  local 
division  of  France,  and  the  only  one  whose  origins  antedate  the 
Revolution,  is  the  commune.  The  commune  is  at  the  same  time 
a  geographical  area  and  a  corporate  personality.  "  On  the  one 
hand,"  says  a  recent  writer,  "  it  is  a  tract  of  territory  the  precise 
limits  of  which  were  defined  by  the  law  of  December  22,  1789,  or 
by  some  subsequent  law  or  decree;  for  by  the  law  of  1789  all 
local  units  which  had  a  separate  identity  during  the  old  regime 
were  authoritatively  recognized  as  communes,  and  since  that 
enactment  there  have  been  a  number  of  suppressions,  divisions, 
consolidations,  and  creations  of  communal  units.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  commune  is  an  agglomeration  of  citizens  united  by 
life  in  a  common  locality  and  having  a  common  interest  in  the 
communal  property.  A  commune  ranks  as  a  legal  person : 
it  may  sue  and  be  sued,  may  contract,  acquire,  or  convey  prop- 
erty,— it  may,  in  general,  exercise  all  of  the  ordinary  rights  of  a 
corporation." 2 

1  See  p.  425.  Block,  Dictionnaire  de  V administration  franqaise,  I,  256-260; 
Berthelemy,  Traite  elementaire  de  droit  admini strut  if  (4th  ed.),  144-146,  175-177. 

2  Munro,  Government  of  European  Cities,  15. 


476  GOVERNMENTS  01     EUR< 

Of  communes  there  were,  in  all,  in  191 1,   \6    11.     [n  both  size 
and  population  the)  varj  en< ously.     Somi  I  of  diminu- 

tive hamlets  of  twenty  or  thirtj  people;  otliei  comprise  cities 
like  Bordeaux,  Lyons,  and  Marseilles,  with  populations  in  excess 
of  a  quarter  of  a  million;  Paris  itself,  with  upwards  of  three 
million  people,  is  a  commune.  At  the  census  of  [911,  27,000 
communes  had  a  population  of  less  than  one  thousand;  17,000, 
of  less  than  five  hundred;  0000,  of  less  than  three  hundred; 
137,  of  less  than  fifty.  On  the  other  hand.  250  contained  a 
population  of  more  than  ten  thousand,  and  fourteen  of  more  than 
one  hundred  thousand.  In  area  they  vary  all  the  way  from  a 
few  acres  to  the  254.540  acres  of  the  commune  of  Aries.1 

Except  Paris'-'  and  Lyons,  all  communes  are  organized  and 
governed  in  the  same  manner.  Each  has  a  council,  whose  mem- 
bers are  elected  by  manhood  suffrage  (usually  by  s<  rutin  dc  lisle), 
for  a  term  of  four  years.  All  members  are  elected  at  the  same 
time,  i.e.,  on  the  first  Sunday  in  May  in  every  fourth  year.'5  In 
communes  whose  population  is  under  five  hundred  the  number  of 
councilors  is  ten  ;  in  those  whose  population  exceeds  five  hundred 
the  number  is  graduated  on  a  basis  such  that  a  commune  of  sixty 
thousand  people  has  a  council  of  thirty-six,  which  is  the  max- 
imum. The  council  holds  four  ordinary  sessions  a  year  —  in 
February,  May,  August,  and  November.  Special  meetings  may 
be  convoked  at  any  time  by  the  prefect,  the  sub-prefect,  or  the 
mayor.  Sessions  are  held  in  the  mairie,  or  municipal  building, 
and  are  open  to  the  public.  Except  the  May  session,  at  which 
the  budget  is  considered,  a  regular  meeting  may  not  be  prolonged 
beyond  fifteen  days,  save  with  the  consent  of  the  sub-prefect. 
The  maximum  duration  of  the  May  sitting  is  six  weeks.  In 
contrast  with  both  English  and  American  usage,  which  involves 
frequent  but  short  council  meetings,  the  French  plan  thus  calls 
for  sessions  held  at  long  intervals  but  extended,  as  a  rule,  over  a 
number  of  days. 

Speaking  broadly,  the  functions  of  the  council  comprise  the 
administration  of  the  purely  local  affairs  of  the  commune  and 
the  formulation  and  expression  of  local  needs  and  demands.  In 
the  municipal  code  of  1884  the  powers  of  the  body  are  defined 
with  exceeding  minuteness.  Some  are  purely  advisory,  to  be 
exercised  when  the  council  is  called  upon  by  the  higher  adminis- 

V  Porche,  La  question  des  ^rnndes  rl  prtils  communes  (Paris,  iqoo). 

2  See  p.  479. 

3  The  electoral  procc-  is  described  in  detail  in  Munro,  Government  of  European 

Chit      i"    11 


LOCAL   GOVERNMENT  AND   ADMINISTRATION     477 

trative  authorities  for  an  expression  of  local  interest  or  desire 
concerning  a  particular  question.  Advice  thus  tendered  may  or 
may  not  be  heeded.  Other  powers  involve  initiation  by  the 
council  of  certain  kinds  of  measures,  which,  however,  may  be 
carried  into  effect  only  with  the  assent  of  the  higher  authorities. 
Among  the  thirteen  such  measures  which  are  enumerated  in  the 
code  the  most  important  are  those  pertaining  to  the  purchase, 
sale,  or  other  legal  disposition  of  property  belonging  to  the  com- 
mune. Finally,  there  is  a  group  of  powers  —  relating  principally 
to  the  various  communal  services,  e.g.,  parks,  fire  protection,  etc. 
—  which  are  vested  in  the  communal  authorities  (council  and 
mayor)  independently.  But  the  predominating  fact  is  that  even 
to-day  the  autonomy  of  the  commune  is  restricted  in  every 
direction.  Many  communal  measures  become  valid  only  upon 
receiving  the  approval  of  the  prefect,  and  practically  any  of  them 
may  be  suspended  or  annulled  by  that  official.  Some  require  the 
consent  of  the  departmental  council,  or  even  of  the  president  of 
the  republic';  and  by  decree  of  the  president  the  council  itself 
may  be  dissolved  at  any  time.1 

The  executive  head  of  the  commune  is  the  ma  ire,  or  mayor,  who 
is  elected  by  the  municipal  council,  by  secret  ballot,  from  its  own 
membership,  for  a  term  of  four  years.  Associated  with  the  mayor 
is,  in  communes  of  2500  inhabitants  or  fewer,  an  adjoint,  or 
assistant,  similarly  chosen.  In  communes  of  2500  to  10,000 
inhabitants  there  are  two  assistants,  and  in  those  of  over  10,000 
there  is  an  additional  one  for  every  25,000  people  in  excess  of 
the  figure  named.  Except  in  Lyons,  however,  where  there  are 
seventeen,  the  number  may  not  exceed  twelve.  They  are  un- 
paid ;  and  the  mayor  has  no  stipend,  although  the  council  may 
give  him  an  allowance  for  expenses.  The  mayor  plays  the  dual 
role  of  executive  head  of  the  commune  and  representative  (al- 
though not  the  appointee)  of  the  central  government.  The 
powers  which  he  exercises  vary  widely  according  to  the  size  and 
importance  of  the  commune.  But  in  general  it  may  be  said  that 
he  appoints  to  the  majority  of  municipal  offices,  publishes  laws 
and  decrees,  issues  arrctcs,  or  ordinances,  supervises  finance, 
organizes  and  controls  the  local  police,  executes  measures  for 
public  health  and  safety,  safeguards  the  property  interests  of 
the  commune,  represents  the  commune  in  cases  at  law  and 
on  ceremonial  occasions,  and  acts  as  the  agent  of  the  central 
government  in  the  supervision  of  census-taking,  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  electoral  lists,  the  enforcement  of  military  service, 

1  On  the  council's  powers  see  Munro,  Government  of  European  Cities,  46-61. 


478  GCN  ERNMEN  rS   OF   EUROPE 

and  the  keeping  of  complete  records  of  births,  deaths,  and 
marriages. 

The  functions  of  the  mayoral  office  are  in  practice  distributed 
by  the  mayor  among  the  assistants,  to  each  of  whom  is  assigned  a 
particular  department,  such  as  that  of  streets,  of  sanitation,  or  of 
urc  protection.  As  a  rule,  the  mayor  reserves  to  himself  the 
control  of  police.  For  the  acts  of  the  assistants,  however,  he  is 
directly  responsible  ;  and  all  acts,  whether  of  the  mayor  or  of  the 
assistants,  which  relate  to  the  interests  of  the  general  government 
are  performed  under  the  strictest  surveillance  of  the  prcfectural 
authorities.  The  mayor  may  be  suspended  from  office  for  a 
month  by  the  prefect,  or  for  three  months  by  the  Minister  of  the 
Interior ;  and  he  may  be  removed  from  office  altogether  by  order 
of  the  president.  The  assistants  are,  after  all,  amateurs,  and, 
not  being  paid,  are  not  expected  to  give  the  whole  of  their 
time  to  the  affairs  of  the  commune.  The  routine  work  of  ad- 
ministration is  carried  on  by  paid  employees  under  the  imme- 
diate direction  of  the  secretaire  de  mairic  (whose  functions  are 
similar  to  those  of  the  English  town  clerk),  the  rcccccur  municipal, 
or  treasurer,  the  commissairc  de  police,  and  such  other  professional 
and  salaried  heads  of  departments  as  the  size  of  the  commune 
requires.  In  general,  these  subordinates  are  locally  appointed ; 
but  the  commissairc  de  police  is  named  by  the  president  of  the 
republic,  and  in  large  communes  the  treasurer  is  similarly  desig- 
nated from  a  list  of  three  persons  nominated  by  the  council.1 

Despite  the  restrictions  by  which  it  is  hedged  about,  the  com- 
mune remains  the  true  focus  of  local  life.  Its  activities,  though 
frequently  on  a  petty  scale,  run  the  gamut  of  finance,  commerce, 
industry,  education,  and  politics.  So  strong  is  the  communal 
spirit  that  public  sentiment  will  but  rarely  permit  the  sup- 
pression of  a  commune,  or  even  the  union  of  tw^o  or  more  little 
ones;  and,  in  truth,  the  code  of  1884  recognized  the  fixity  of 
communal  identity  by  permitting  changes  of  communal  bound- 
aries to  be  undertaken  by  the  departmental  authorities  only 
after  an  enqucte  designed  to  ascertain  local  feeling  on  the  sub- 
ject. Save  by  special  decree  of  the  president  of  the  republic, 
not  even  the  name  of  a  commune  may  be  altered  ;  and  such 
changes  are  nowadays  rare.2 

1  On  police  organization  see  R.  B.  Fosdick,  European  Police  Systems  (New  York, 
191 5),  23-25  and  passim. 

-The  best  account  of  the  French  commune  in  the  English  language  is  Munro, 
Government  of  European  Cities,  1-108  (see  also  bibliography,  pp.  .^Ko-.vSoi.  An  older 
but  still  useful  ai  \.  Shaw,    Municipal  Government  in  Continental  Europe 

(New  York,  1895),  146-209.     The  most  convenient  brief  accounts  in  French  are 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  AND   ADMINISTRATION     479 

The  Government  of  Paris.  —  Most  of  the  world's  great  capitals 
have  systems  of  government  which  are  more  or  less  peculiar  to 
themselves,  and  Paris  is  no  exception.  The  municipal  law  of 
1884  does  not  apply,  and  the  city,  while  technically  a  commune, 
has  different  officers  and  different  powers  from  any  other  French 
municipality.  The  reasons  for  excepting  it  from  a  system  other- 
wise nation-wide  are  not  difficult  to  discover.  In  the  first  place, 
it  is  many  times  as  large  as  any  other  city  in  the  republic,  and  its 
population  is  traditionally  fickle  in  political  matters.  Through- 
out modern  times,  and  especially  since  1789,  it  has  been  a  per- 
petual fount  of  unsettling  influences,  the  point  at  which  revolu- 
tions, in  long  succession,  have  had  their  beginning.  Protection 
of  the  nation  against  subversive  forces  and  tendencies  seems  to 
require  that  the  central  government  shall  have  a  special  control 
over  the  capital's  affairs.  Furthermore,  the  city  is  filled  with 
buildings,  monuments,  and  other  national  properties,  whose 
security  is  a  matter  of  concern  to  the  people  of  the  entire  coun- 
try. 

The  laws  under  which  the  capital  is  governed  date  from  1837, 
1867,  and  1 8  71.  The  first  two  defined  the  powers  and  functions 
of  the  prefects ;  the  last  regulated  the  organization  of  the  council. 
There  is  nojnayor  of  the  city  as  a  whole.  Instead,  the  chief 
executive  officers  are  two  coordinate  prefects  —  the  prefect 
of  the  Seine  and  the  prefect  of  police.  Both  were  appointed  by 
the  president  of  the  republic ;  both  can  be  removed  by  him  at 
any  time ;  both  are  directly  responsible  to  the  Minister  of  the 
Interior.  Both,  it  must  be  further  observed,  are  prefects  of  the 
Seine  department,  which  includes  not  only  the  city  of  Paris,  but 
a  considerable  amount  of  surrounding  country.1  Hence,  to- 
gether they  have  all  of  the  powers  and  functions  belonging  to  a 
prefect  in  any  department.  But,  in  addition,  they  have,  in 
Paris,  those  powers  and  functions  that  would  be  possessed  by  the 

Block,  Dictionnaire  de  V administration  franqaise,  I,  738-852,  and  Berthelemy, 
Traite  elementaire  de  droit  administratif  (4th  ed.) ,  184-2 14.  Among  general  treatises 
may  be  mentioned  M.  Block,  Entretiens  sur  V administration;  la  commune  (Paris, 
1884) ;  L.  Bequet,  Traite  de  la  commune  (Paris,  1888) ;  P.  Andre  and  F.  Marin, 
La  loi  sur  V organisation  municipalc  du  5  avril  1S84  (Paris,  1884) ;  and  F.  Grelot, 
Loi  du  5  avril  1SS4  (Paris,  1889).  The  best  and  most  recent  extensive  work  is  L. 
Morgand,  La  loi  municipalc,  2  vols.  (7th  ed.,  Paris,  1907).  On  municipal  elections 
the  best  work  is  M.  J.  Saint-Lager,  Elections  municipalcs  (6th  ed.,  Paris,  1904). 
An  excellent  study  is  P.  Lavergne,  "  Du  pouvoir  central  et  des  conseils  municipaux," 
in  Rev.  Gen.  d' Admin.,  1900.  See  also  A.  G.  Desbats,  Le  budget  municipal  (Paris, 
1895) ;  M.  Peletant,  De  V organisation  de  la  police  (Dijon,  1899) ;  and  R.  Griffin, 
Les  biens  communaux  en  France  (Paris,  1899). 

1  The  jurisdiction  of  the  prefect  of  police,  indeed,  includes  some  portions  of  the 
adjacent  department  of  Seine-et-Oise. 


G0VERNM1  \  rS   "i     i  .1  ROPE 

mayor  if  there  were  one.  Among  numerous  other  duties,  the 
prefe<  I  of  the  Seine  supervises  the  general  administration  of  the 
i  ity's  affairs  as  <  arried  on  in  the  twenty  arrondissements,  <>i  ward  • 
subdivisions  whii  h  have  a  mayor,  a  group  of  adjoints,  and  per- 
manent administrative  staff-  (bul  no  elective  councils),  on  the  an- 
alogy of  the  ordinary  communes.  The  prefe<  I  of  police  lias  in- 
dependent control  (subject  only  to  the  Minister  of  the  [nterior) 
of  that  branch  of  administrative  jurisdiction  which  the  French 
designate  by  the  term  "  police."  a  field  of  jurisdiction  which,  it 
must  be  observed,  includes  not  only  the  maintenance  of  law  and 
order,  but  the  enforcement  of  public  health  regulations,  the  super- 
vision of  industrial  establishments,  and  many  similar  activities. 

The  capital's  municipal  council  consists  of  eighty  members 
elected  by  popular  vote,  in  single-member  districts,  for  a  term  ot 
four  years"  In  organization,  sessions,  and  procedure  it  is  not. 
markedly  different  from  the  ordinary  communal  councils; 
although  it  occasionally  sits  with  twenty-one  representatives  of 
the  two  suburban  arrondissements  of  Saint-Denis  and  Sceaux 
to  form  the  council  of  the  Seine  department.  The  municipal 
council  has  far  less  power  than  the  communal  councils  generally. 
It  does  not  elect,  and  cannot  effectively  control,  the  administra- 
tive officers;  its  modest  actions  relating  to  the  municipal  prop- 
erty require  the  indorsement  of  the  prefect  of  the  Seine ;  almost 
it-  only  substantial  power  is  voting  the  budget.1 

The  Question  of  Administrative  Reform.  -The  administra- 
tive system  which  has  been  described  has  been  the  object  of  much 
criticism,  and  its  reconstruction  has  become  a  leading  public 
question.  The  faults  that  are  found  with  it  can  be  summarized 
a-  follows:  (i)  the  system  -prang  mainly  from  imperial  bureau- 
cracy and  is  fundamentally  out  of  keeping  with  the  democratic 
character  of  the  French  people  and  of  the  national  constitution; 
12)  with  the  exception  of  the  mayors  and  a  few  other  officials 
chosen  by  the  local  councils,  the  central  government  directly  or 
indirectly  appoints  all  Local  administrative  authorities,  while  the 
people  neither  elect  nor  control  any  of  these  authorities  directly; 
I  the  electe  1  councils  have  no  very  extensive  power,  but  on  the 
contrary  are  restricted  at  almost  every  turn  by  the  tutelle  ad- 
ministrative, a-  exercised  over  them,  and  over  all  local  authori- 
ties, by  the  government  at  Paris ;    (4)  the  powers  and  functions 

1  for  a  fuller  account  of  the  government  of   Paris   see  Munro,  Government  of 
European  Citu  rad   Berthelemy.  Trail,'  elhmntairr  de  droit  adviinistralit 

14th  cd.).  214  22 r.  General  treatise-  include  G.  Artigues,  Le  regime  municipal 
de  la  vitte  de  Paris  I  I'ari-.  [898),  and  M.  Block,  L' Administration  de  la  villc  dc  Paris 
et  du  departi  m<r.t  de  la  Seine  (Paris,  > 


LOCAL   GOVERNMENT  AND   ADMINISTRATION     481 

of  the  prefect,  in  particular,  are  of  such  a  nature  that  there  can 
never  be  real  local  liberty  until  the  office  is  abolished,  or  at  all 
events  completely  altered;  (5)  the  sub-prefects,  in  the  arron- 
dissements,  perform  no  necessary  work  that  could  not  be  cared 
for  otherwise,  although  they  cost  the  country  a  large  sum  every 
year  ;  (6)  the  present  system,  indeed,  encourages  an  undue  multi- 
plication of  functionaries,  entailing  unjustifiable  burdens  for  the 
taxpayer;  (7)  the  system  gives  the  government  too  many 
agents  through  whom  to  influence  the  voters  in  parliamentary 
elections ;  and  (8)  the  national  parliament  is  overburdened  with 
legislative  and  administrative  business  that  ought  to  be  taken 
care  of  locally,  causing  neglect  of  large  national  concerns,  while 
yet  entailing  intolerable  delays  in  the  conduct  of  departmental 
and  communal  affairs.1 

There  are,  of  course,  counter-arguments.  One  of  them  is 
that  close  supervision  by  the  central  government  is  necessary 
to  protect  the  taxpayers  against  extravagance  on  the  part  of 
the  local  —  especially  the  communal  —  councils.  Another  is 
that  the  central  government  must  depend  largely  upon  the  local 
authorities  for  the  execution  of  national  laws,  and  that,  therefore, 
these  authorities  must  be  subject  to  central  control.  It  is  cate- 
gorically denied,  too,  that  any  considerable  class  of  functionaries 
belonging  to  the  present  system  is  unnecessary ;  of  the  sub-pre- 
fects it  is  specifically  affirmed  that,  in  the  larger  departments 
at  all  events,  they  are  indispensable  administrative  agents  and 
informational  intermediaries. 

Since  1894,  when  at  the  instigation  of  the  Chamber  of  Depu- 
ties an  extra-parliamentary  commission  of  inquiry  was  created, 
the  question  has  been  almost  continuously  under  discussion. 
Parliamentary  and  extra-parliamentary  commissions  have  pre- 
pared voluminous  reports  upon  it ;  the  chambers  have  debated 
resolutions  and  plans  relating  to  it ;  scores  of  books  and  pam- 
phlets consider  it  from  every  angle ;  associations  (notably  a  Fed- 
eration Regionaliste  Francaise,  founded  in  1900,  and  a  Ligue  de 
Representation  professionnelle  et  d 'Action  regionaliste,  organized 
in  1913)  have  been  established  to  promote  action  upon  it ;  polit- 
ical parties  and  incoming  ministries  have  repeatedly  issued  pro- 
nouncements upon  it;  in  the  parliamentary  election  of  igio^it 
took  precedence  over  all  issues  except  electoral  reform  ; 2  and  while 

1  Cf .  the  criticisms  of  the  conditions  of  the  functionaries  (with  particular  reference 
to  the  persons  employed  exclusively  by  the  national  executive  departments)  pre 
sented  above,  pp.  404-406. 

2  Of  the  597  deputies  elected,  346  had  given  administrative  reform  a  place  in 
their  platform. 


482  GOVERNMEN  rS  01     EUROPE 

tin.-  subject  naturally  fell  into  abeyance  during  the  war.  it  was 
immediately  revived  after  the  armistice,  and  it  again  absorbs 
the  attention  of  Large  numbers  of  influential  people. 

Proposals  for  reform  run  on  many  lines  an<l  look  to  widely 
differing  degrees  of  decentralization.  Perhaps  the  most  common 
demand  is  for  the  abolition  of  the  sub-prefectural  office,  although 
obviously  this  alone  would  work  no  great  change.  Many  1  ouple 
wiih  this  a  demand  for  the  suppression  of  the  prefectural  office 
also,  which  would  entail  a  general  reorganization,  because  that 
office  is  at  present  the  cornerstone  of  the  strut  lure.1  There  is 
demand,  too,  that  the  prefectural  councils  be  either  abolished  or 
reorganized  on  more  democratic  lines;  and  definite  proposals 
were  made  in  1887,  1896,  and  1908,  with  which  the  names  of 
Falliercs,  Barthou,  and  Clemenceau,  respe<  tively,  are  connei  ted, 
to  transfer  the  councils'  powers  as  administrative  courts  to  other 
and  differently  constituted  tribunals. 

The  proposal  that  has  received  the  largest  amount  of  attention 
in  recent  years,  and  that  probably  comes  nearest  to  the  end  that 
is  sought,  is  one  looking  to  the  reorganization  of  the  country  in 
great  self-governing  provinces  or  "  regions."  Thi>  is  op  new  idea. 
The  philosopher  Comte  worked  out  a  plan  for  seventeen  such 
regions  in  1854,  and  ten  years  later  Le  Play  proposed  a  similar 
division  of  the  country  into  thirteen  political  areas.  As  developed 
by  some  of  the  later  reformers,  the  plan  would  mean  to  abolish 
the  departments  altogether ;  as  developed  by  others,  it  would 
mean,  rather,  to  retain  the  departments  for  certain  administra- 
tive purposes,  but  to  group  them  into  larger  units,  to  which  most 
of  the  major  powers  of  local  government  would  be  transferred. 
In  either  case,  the  "  region  "  would  be  endowed  with  much  more 
autonomy  than  any  French  local  government  area  now  enjoys, 
and  it  would  have  both  an  elective  legislature  with  substantial 
powers  and  a  strong  local  executive,  probably  also  locally  elected. 
It  would  be  the  purpose,  too,  to  lay  out  the  new  areas  with  regard 
for  historical  associations  and  physical  unity,  in  the  expecta- 
tion that  they  would  have  a  self-consciousness  and  a  vitality 
which  the  purely  artificial  departments  lack.  In  some  cases 
the  provinces  which  were  swept  away  in  1 789  —  or  areas  very 
similar    to    them  —  would   probably   reappear.2      Two   projects 

1  This  plan  is  advocated  in  H.  Chardon,  Le  pouvoir  administratif  (new  ed., 
iyi2),  Chap.  iv. 

-Thus,  divisions  that  arc  usually  provided  for  in  specific  proposals  on  the  sub- 
ject include  Brittany,  Normandy,  Limousin,  Poitou,  Provence,  Languedoc,  etc., 
although  not  necessarily  under  these  historic  names.  See  the  report  of  a  "com- 
mission de  l'administration  g£n6rale  departementale  el  communale  "  of  the  Chamber 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  AND  ADMINISTRATION     483 

of  1902  and  1907  which  received  much  attention  provided  for 
twenty-five  regional  governments,  each  having  its  seat  in  a  city 
which  is  the  center  of  a  territory  with  a  distinct  community  of 
interest. 

The  regional  plan  is  opposed  in  many  quarters,  sometimes  on 
the  ground  that  it  would  tend  to  revive  the  old  provincial  spirit 
which  was  an  obstacle  to  national  unity,  sometimes  on  the  ground 
that  it  would  not  remove  the  real  sources  of  discontent,  although 
most  often  on  the  ground  that  the  administrative  system  as  it 
stands  is  capable  of  being  reformed  in  the  desired  directions  with- 
out breaking  up  the  jurisdictional  areas  to  which  the  people  have 
become  accustomed.  It  is  by  no  means  assured  that  the  regional 
plan  will  ever  be  adopted.  The  discussion  of  it  reminds  one  in 
an  interesting  way,  however,  of  the  consideration  of  plans  for 
legislative  and  administrative  devolution  in  England,  and  both 
movements  are  indicative  of  a  certain  trend  of  thought,  in  these 
countries  at  all  events,  toward  federalism.1  No  proposition 
looking  to  federalism,  in  the  proper  meaning  of  that  term,  has, 
however,  been  put  forward  seriously  in  France ;  and  while  it  is 
safe  to  predict  that  both  legislation  and  administration  will  be 
further  decentralized  in  coming  years,  it  is  even  more  certain 
that  France  will  remain  a  unitary  state,  and  that,  as  also  in  Eng- 
land, central  control  will  always  be  maintained  at  a  level  unknown 
in  states  that  are  organized  on  the  federal  principle.2 

of  Deputies,  submitted  February  6,  1918,  and  printed  in  Rev.  Gen.  d'Admin.,  July- 
Aug.,  1919,  pp.  161-192. 

1  See  pp.  201-205. 

2  The  problem  of  administrative  decentralization  in  France  is  lucidly  discussed 
in  Duguit,  Law  in  the  Modern  State,  Chap.  iv.  The  best  brief  account  of  the  move- 
ment for  administrative  reform  is  Garner,  "Administrative  Reform  in  France," 
in  Amer.  Polit.  Set.  Rev.,  Feb.,  1919.  The  literature  of  the  subject  is  very  extensive. 
A  few  of  the  best  titles  are  M.  Hauriou,  La  decentralisation  (Paris,  1893) ;  P. 
Deschanel,  La  decentralisation  (Paris,  1895) ;  ibid.,  V organisation  de  la  democratic 
(Paris,  1910) ;  C.  Maurras  et  J.  P.  Boncour,  Un  nouvcau  debat  sur  la  decentralisation 
(Paris,  1908) ;  M.  Lallemand,  Reorganisation  administrative  (Paris,  1909) ;  H.  Char- 
don,  Le  pouvoir  administratif  (new  ed.,  Paris,  1912) ;  and  J.  Barthelemy,  Le  probUmc 
dc  la  competence  dans  la  democratic  (Paris,  1918).  The  files  of  the  Rev.  Gen.  d'Admtn. 
should  be  consulted  for  documentary  materials  and  for  numerous  articles,  notably 
J.  Hennessy,  "La  reorganisation  administrative  de  la  France,"  in  the  issues  of  May- 
June  and  July-Aug.,  1919.  See  also  J.  T.  Young,  "Administrative  Centralization 
and  Decentralization  in  France,"  in  Ann.  of  Amer.  Acad,  of  Polit.  and  Soc.  Set., 
Jan.,  189S;  C.  Beauquier,  "Un  projet  de  reforme  administrative ;  l'organisation 
regionale  en  France,"  in  Rev.  Pol.et  Pari.,  Nov.,  1909;  Vidal  delaBlache,  "Regions 
francaises,"  in  Rev.  de  Paris,  Dec,  1910;  and  L.  Boucheron,  "La  reforme  adminis- 
trative apres  la  guerre  —  le  regionalisme,"  in  Rev.  Polit.  et  Pari.,  Aug.,  191S.  The 
unsatisfactory  condition  of  the  functionaries  is  stressed  in  A.  Lefas,  L'Etat  et  les 
fonctionnaires  (Paris,  19 13). 


CHAPTER    XXVII 

POLITICAL    PARTIES 

Origins:  Republicans,  Conservatives,  and  Radicals.  At  an 
early  stage  of  the  French  Revolution  a  party  arose  whose  cardinal 
aim  was  the  displacement  of  monarchy  by  a  republican  form  i^ 
government;  and.  speaking  broadly,  the  alignment  of  French 
parties  since  1871  has  been  a  producl  of  the  hitter  rivalry  between 
monarchical  and  republican  ideas  which  went  on  uninterruptedly 
from  the  eighteenth  century  until  after  the  Third  Republic  was 
definitely  on  its  feet.  Neither  republicans  nor  monarchists 
were  ever  able  to  build  up  a  single,  compact,  and  durable  party 
on  the  analogy  of  the  great  parties  of  England.  Yet,  in  the 
main,  the  issues  that  were  fought  out,  both  in  and  out  of  Parlia- 
ment, either  directly  turned  on  the  question  of  the  form  that  the 
government  should  take  or  served  to  bring  out  antagonisms  and 
arguments  that  had  their  origin  in  monarchical  or  republican 
ideals.  The  republicans  triumphed  conspicuously  in  1792,  and 
again  in  1848,  when,  in  each  case,  a  monarchical  system  was 
abruptly  abolished;  and  although  the  republics  set  up  on  these 
occasions  failed  to  strike  root,  republicanism  as  a  creed  never 
lacked  influential  and  numerous  adherents,  whether  under 
Bonapartist,  Bourbon,  or  Orleanist  regimes. 

As  has  been  pointed  out,  the  National  Assembly  elected  in 
1871  was  monarchist  in  the  approximate  proportion  of  five 
monarchists  to  two  republicans  —  a  proportion  which  probably 
prevailed  substantially  throughout  the  country.  But  neither 
the  monarchists  nor  the  republicans  were  anything  more  than  ill- 
organized  collections  of  mutually  jealous  groups.  The  mon- 
archists, as  we  have  seen,  were  sharply  divided  into  Legitimist. 
Bourbon,  and  Bonapartist  factions.  The  republicans,  although 
more  able  to  forget  their  differences  and  to  ad  together  at 
supreme  moments,  were  quite  as  incapable  of  sustained  cohesion. 
Like  the  monarchists,  they  were  divided  into  three  main  groups. 
One  was  the  Extreme  Left,  led  by  Gambetta.  The  second  was 
the  Left,  led  by  Grevy,  Freycinet,  and  Loubi  t.  The  third  was 
the  Center  Left,  which  followed  Thiers  and  Jules  Simon.     Even 

484 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  4*>5 

in  the  face  of  an  apparently  overwhelming  monarchist  opposi- 
tion,, these  groups  often  failed  to  work  together.  It  was,  for 
example,  the  defection  of  the  Extreme  Left  that  enabled  the 
monarchists  in  1873  to  over  throw  Thiers  and  to  name  as  his 
successor  the  royalist  Marshal  MacMahon. 

Under  circumstances  that  have  been  described  in  an  earlier 
chapter,  the  republican  constitution  of  1875  was  eventually 
adopted.  The  elections  of  1876  gave  the  monarchists  a  majority 
in  the  Senate,  which  they  retained  until  1882.  But  in  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies  the  republicans  from  the  first  outnumbered 
their  opponents  in  the  proportion  of  more  than  two  to  one.  In 
parliamentary  usage,  the  monarchists  were  commonly  referred 
to  as  the  Right,  although  they  were  often  called  Reactionaries. 
It  was  understood  that  they  were  bent  upon  the  overthrow  of 
the  republic,  and  doubtless  at  the  outset  most  of  them  looked 
to  such  an  eventuality.  Gradually,  however,  the  new  regime 
intrenched  itself  in  the  loyalty,  and  even  the  affection,  of  the 
mass  of  the  people,  with  the  result  that  the  revival  of  monarchy 
became  less  and  less  probable,  and  large  numbers  of  men  who  had 
actively  worked  for  the  monarchist  cause  became  only  theo- 
retic adherents  of  it,  while  others  emulated  the  example  early 
set  by  Thiers  and  openly  espoused  republicanism.  Eventually 
—  although  no  fixed  date  can  be  assigned  —  the  line  of  cleavage 
between  monarchists  and  republicans  as  such  ceased  to  have 
practical  importance;  and  the  harsh  party  name  Reactionary  ( 
gave  way  to  the  milder  term  Conservative. 

Meanwhile  important  changes  took  place  in  the  ranks  of  the 
republicans.  If  we  may  regard  the  Chamber  majority  after  the 
elections  of  1876  as  forming  a  Republican  party,  it  is  at  least 
necessary  to  observe  that  the  republican  deputies  were  divided 
into  no  fewer  than  seven  groups,  each  clinging  to  its  own  ideas 
and  its  own  leaders,  and  all  unable  to  work  together  smoothly 
unless  extreme  pressure  —  such  as  arose  from  the  contest  with 
President  MacMahon  in  1877  —  was  applied.  So  long  as 
Gambetta  lived,  his  followers  kept  up  their  nominal  allegiance  ^ 
to  the  general  Republican  party.  But  after  his  death,  in  1881, 
the  group  split  off  completely  and  became  the  Radical  party  ; 
and  in  the  elections  of  1885  this  party  obtained  enough  seats  (150) 
in  the  Chamber  to  make  it  impossible  for  the  Republicans  alone 
to  retain  control.  Thenceforth  there  were,  therefore,  three 
principal  party  groups  —  the  Conservatives,  the  Republicans, 
and  the  Radicals.  No  one  of  them  was  ever  able  to  command  a 
majority   in   the   Chamber   single-handed,   and,   therefore,   the 


486  GOVERNMEN  rS  OF   EI  ROPE 

politics  of  a  long  period  turned  upon  the  adoption  of  one  or  the 
other  of  two  lines  of  tactics  the  coalition  of  the  two  republican 
divisions  to  the  end  that  they  might  rule  as  againsl  a  Conserva- 
tive minority  (the  so-called  policy  of  "republican  concen- 
tration "),  and  the  alliance  of  one  of  these  groups  with  the 
Conservatives  againsl  the  other  republican  group  (spoken  of 
commonly  as  a  "pacification").  The  first  ''concentration" 
ministry  was  that  of  Brisson,  formed  in  [885  ;  the  first  "  pacifi- 
cation "  ministry  was  that  of  Rouvier,  formed  in  1887.  In  the 
middle  oineties  some  attempts  were  made  to  create  and  maintain 
homogeneous  ministries.  The  Bourgeois  ministry  of  1895-96 
was  composed  entirely  of  Radicals  and  the  Mclinc  ministry  of 
1896  08  of  Republicans.  Hut  at  the  elections  of  [898  the  Repub- 
lican position  in  the  Chamber  broke  down,  and  it  was  necessary 
to  return,  with  the  Dupuy  ministry,  to  the  policy  of  concen- 
tration.1 

The  Party  Situation,  1900-14.  —  There  is  no  need  to  follow 
through  all  of  its  stages  the  tortuous  story  of  French  party 
alignments  under  the  Third  Republic.  Rather  it  will  be  profit- 
able to  survey  the  party  grouping  of  comparatively  recent 
times,  to  call  attention  to  the  growth  of  liberalism  and  of  radi- 
calism, especially  as  these  political  attitudes  find  expression  in 
organized  socialism,  and,  finally,  to  sum  up  certain  characteristic 
features  of  French  party  life,  with  the  reasons  therefor.  The 
first  thing  to  be  observed  is  that  the  old  alignment  of  Conserv- 
atives and  Republicans,  if  indeed  it  can  be  said  nowadays  to 
exist,  means  something  totally  different  from  what  it  meant  in 
the  formative  era  of  the  Republic.  There  is  no  single  party 
which  bears  either  name.  There  are  "  conservatives,"  but  few 
of  them  are  monarchists;  there  are  republicans,  but  they  include 
most  conservatives  and.  indeed,  almost  everybody  else.  The 
party  situation  since  1900  can  be  made  most  concrete  by  view- 
ing it  in  terms  of  the  various  groups  of  members  as  they  sit  in 
front  of  the  presiding  officer  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies;  be- 
cause, in  accordance  with  continental  custom,  they  there  occupy 
places  which  denote  both  the  general  character  of  their  tenets 
and  the  relationship  which  they  bear  to  other  political  elements. 
At  the  president's  extreme  right  sit  the  ultra-conservatives,  at 
his  extreme  left  the  ultra-radicals;  whence  arise  the  terms  Right. 
and  Left,  as  used  to  denote  the  portions  of  the  membership 

1  Party  history  during  the  first  decade  of  the  Third  Republic  is  most  fully  and 
authoritatively  narrated  in  llanutaux,  Contemporary  Franct  1  pecially  Vol.  IV, 
on  the  period  1877-82. 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  487 

which  are  of  conservative  and  radical  temperaments  respectively. 
Groups  whose  views  are  intermediate  occupy  middle  positions 
in  the  hall. 

As  matters  have  stood  for  upwards  of  two  decades,  the  extreme 
right  has  been  occupied  by  the  Monarchists,  and  next  to  them 
have  sat  the  members  of  the  Action  Liberate  (Liberal  Action). 
The  Monarchist  members  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war  numbered 
only  twenty-six.  Some  supported  a  Bourbon  pretender,  some  a 
Bonapartist  claimant;  none  were  taken  very  seriously  either 
inside  or  outside  the  chamber.1  The  Action  Liberate  was  organ- 
ized in  1 90 1,  when  the  great  conflict  over  the  relations  of  church 
and  state  was  approaching  a  crisis ;  and  its  object  was  to  recon- 
cile clericalism,  i.e.,  in  a  general  way,  the  interests  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  with  republicanism.  Its  members,  drawn  mainly  from 
the  upper  bourgeoisie,  fully  support  the  present  form  of  govern- 
ment, but  they  demand  the  repeal  of  the  anti-clerical  legislation 
of  1901-07,  and  they  urge  the  revision  of  the  constitution  so  as  to 
make  the  rights  of  property  holders  still  more  secure.  The 
former  electoral  system  worked  to  their  disadvantage;  hence 
they  have  been  ardent  supporters  of  scrutin  de  liste  and  propor- 
tional representation.  They  seek,  too,  to  compete  with  the 
Socialists  for  the  votes  of  the  working  classes  by  advocating 
minimum  wage  and  other  new  labor  laws,  and  by  supporting 
trade-unionism  and  social  insurance.  That  their  appeal  is  not 
fruitless  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  in  1914  they  polled  1,350,000 
votes,  which,  however,  were  so  scattered  over  the  country  that 
only  34  of  the  party's  candidates  were  elected.  Considering 
that  the  Unified  Socialist  party  in  the  same  election  obtained 
102  seats  on  a  basis  of  one  hundred  thousand  fewer  votes,  largely 
because  of  their  concentration  in  industrial  constituencies,  it  is 
not  difficult  to  see  why  the  Action  Liber  ale  favored  proportional 
representation  and  the  Socialists  opposed  it. 

At  the  extreme  left  of  the  Chamber  sat  the  Socialists,  whose 
rise  to  prominence  will  be  described  presently.  Between  the 
Monarchists  and  Action  Liberate  and  the  Socialists  sat  from 
1900  onwards  a  number  of  groups  composing  a  bloc,  or  coalition. 
The  circumstance  that  first  brought  these  elements  together  was 
the  Dreyfus  controversy,  and  the  original  object  of  the  union  was 
to  protect  the  republic  against  the  forces  of  reaction  and  dis- 
ruption which  that  controversy  released.  A  strong  organization 
was  built  up,  and  for  almost  fifteen  years  the  bloc  was  able  to 

1  On  the  survival  of  monarchist  influences,  up  to  some  twenty  years  ago,  see 
Bodley,  France,  II,  353-403. 


G<  »\  I  RNM1  N  l      "I     II  ROPE 

control  the  ministries,  dominate  the  Chamber,  and  shape  the 
poli<  ies  of  the  republii  ,  "  Ret  1  oned  from  Righl  to  Li  n  "  as  a 
in  enf  writer  lia  >  described  it,  "  the  blot  in<  luded  l  1 1  the  Proj 

Republicans,  headed  by  Paul  Deschanel  .  .  ..  recruited 
from  the  upper  middle  class  and  from  the  small  propertied  class, 
devoted  to  the  individual  rights  and  liberties  proclaimed  by  the 
Revolution,  especially  to  the  basic  righl   of  private  property; 

Radicals  of  varying  titles,  the  core,  and  by  far  the  most 
numerous,  of  the  bloc,  true  disciples  of  Gambetta,  shapers  of 
bourgeois  policies,  intellectual  radicals,  most  stalwart  anti- 
clericals,  including  in  m;io  such  influential  politicians  as  Senators 
Clemenceau  and  Combes  and  Deputy  Caillaux;  and  (3)  Radical 
Socialists,   or,   as   would   be   more  accurately   descriptive,   the 

ialisticalry  inclined  Radicals,5  a  remarkable  group,  who  with 
pronounced  anti-clericalism  combined  a  determination  to  drag 
their  more  or  less  unwilling  allies  along  the  path  of  social  reform 
and  to  do  for  the  working  classes  what  the  French  Revolution  did 
for  the  bourgeoisie,  a  'bourgeois  party  with  a  popular  soul,' 
championing  not  only  strict  governmental  regulation  of  industry 
but  government  ownership  of  all  means  of  communication  and 
transportation,  likewise  of  national  resources  like  mines,  forests, 
oil  fields,  etc.  Among  the  Radical  Socialist  group  were  to  be 
counted  several  brilliant  men,  such  as  Briand,  Millerand,  and 
Viviani,  who  called  themselves  plain  Socialists,  but  who  were 
read  out  of  the  regular  Socialist  camp  because  of  their  willingness 
to  enter  coalition  ministries  with  representatives  of  non-Socialist 
groups.1 '  ' 

The  great  issue  that  held  the  bloc  together  was  anti-clericalism  ; 
and  during  the  first  decade  of  the  century  the  anti-clerical 
program  was  carried  rapidly  forward:  the  religious  orders  were 
expelled  from  the  country,  church  and  state  were  separated, 
and  larger  provision  was  made  for  secular  education.  Then  new 
questions  pushed  into  the  foreground  the  taxation  of  incomes, 
electoral  reform,  the  three-year  term  of  military  service,  and 
several  aspects  of  further  social  reconstruction.  Tin  groups  in 
the  bloc  by  no  means  thought  alike  on  these  matter-,  and  after 
1910  the  combination  gradually  dissolved.  At  the  elections  of 
April-May,  1914,  the  Action  Liberale  on  the  one  side  and  the 
Socialists  on  the  other  made  substantial  gains;  while  the  bour- 
geois groups  that  had  composed  the  bloc  fared,  in  the  words  of 
the  writer  already  quoted,  as  follows :  "  The  Progressists  adhered 
to  their  earlier  principles  and  maintained  their  strength  practi- 
1  Hayes,  Political  and  Social  History  of  Modern  Europi    1 1 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  489 

rally  unimpaired.  But  the  Radicals  and  Radical-Socialists  were 
split  up  into  a  number  of  groups,  which  tended,  both  in  the  parlia- 
ment and  in  the  country  at  large,  to  gravitate  toward  one  or 
other  of  two  new  and  rival  combinations.  The  first  was  the 
Unified  Radicals,  including  such  men  as  Caillaux,  Combes,  and 
Clemenceau,  bent  upon  the  vigorous  prosecution  of  more  extreme 
anti-clerical  legislation,  especially  against  private  church  schools, 
generally  hostile  to  electoral  reform,  and  lukewarm  in  the  cause 
of  labor  legislation.  The  second  new  coalition  was  the  Federa- 
tion of  the 'Left,  whose  principles  were  championed  by  Briand 
and  by  Poincare,  who  had  been  elected  to  the  presidency  in 
January,  191 3  ;  it  urged  both  labor  legislation  and  parliamentary 
reform,  and  while  not  favoring  any  repeal  of  anti-clerical  legis- 
lation, it  was  unwilling  further  to  open  the  breach  between 
Catholics  and  non-Catholics.' '  l  Following  the  election,  cab- 
inets rose  and  fell  in  swift  succession ;  the  main  source  of  discord 
being  the  demand  of  the  Socialists  and  other  radical  elements 
for  immediate  repeal  of  the  three-year  service  law.  With  fine 
irony,  the  Great  War  cut  short  this  controversy ;  and  every 
important  political  group  forthwith  turned  its  full  strength  into 
the  channels  of  national  defense.2 

Socialism  Prior  to  1905.  — "  The  political  history  of  France 
since  the  beginning  of  the  Republic,"  says  a  French  scholar, 
"  presents,  instead  of  an  alternation  between  two  parties  of 
opposing  programs,  like  those  of  Belgium  or  England,  a  con- 
tinual evolution  along  one  line,  the  constant  growth  of  the 
strength  of  parties  which  represent  the  democratic,  anti-clerical 
tendency."  3  Thus  far,  this  phase  of  development  has  reached 
its  culmination  in  the  rise  of  the  Unified  Socialist  party ;  and 
in  view  of  the  strong  position  which  this  party  has  gained  in  the 
country's  politics,  lawmaking,  and  administration,  its  growth 
and  character  require  some  comment.  France  is,  indeed,  the 
land  that  gave  modern  socialism  birth.  There  were  traces  of 
socialism  in  the  liberal  thought  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
although  the  ideas  of  Mably,  Meslier,  Morelly,  and  other  radicals 
were  rather  more  communistic  than  socialistic;4  and  Baboeuf, 

1  Hayes,  Political  and  Social  History  of  Modern  Europe,  II,  367. 

-  The  effects  of  the  war  on  the  party  situation  are  described  below.  See  pp. 
496-501. 

3C.  Seignobos,  "The  Political  Parties  of  France,"  in  Intemat.  Monthly,  Aug., 
iqoi,  155.  The  best,  and  almost  the  only,  treatise  on  French  parties  is  L.  Jacques, 
Les  partis  politiqucs  sous  la  iiie  republique  (Paris,  1913).  The  subject  is  covered  less 
satisfactorily  in  H.  Lagardelle,  "Die  politischen  Parteien  in  Frankreich  von  1871- 
1902,"  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Politik,  V.  Bd.  Hf.  4,  1912. 

4  Janet,  Histoire  dc  la  science  politique  (3d  ed.),  II,  650-671. 


4<)o  GOVERNMEN  rS  01     EUROPE 

who  was  executed  in  [797  for  bis  part  In  a  conspiracy  against  the 
government  of  the  Directory,  was  a  thoroughgoing  socialist. 
The  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  saw  a  steady  growth  of 
socialist  doctrine  and  the  rise,  under  the  influence  and  Leadership 
of  Saint-Simon,  Fourier,  and  Louis  Blanc,  of  a  socialist  party 
of  considerable  coherence  and  strength.  The  driving  forces  in 
the  revolution  of  [848  were  socialism  and  republicanism,  although 
once  the  monarchy  was  overthrown,  the  socialists  and  repub 
licans  proved  unable  to  work  together,  with  the  result  that  the 
republic  failed  and  the  socialist  creed  was  discredited.5  There- 
upon, socialist  propaganda  practically  ceased  for  a  generation. 
There  continued  to  be  socialists,  and  there  was  a  certain  amount 
of  socialist  discussion  and  writing;  but  there  was  no  socialist 
party  or  "  movement."  Unrest  among  the  Laboring  masses  was 
partially  allayed  by  a  measure  of  [864  Legalizing  strikes,  and 
another  of  1868  tolerating  trade-unions,  and  although  the  war 
with  Prussia  in  1870-71  deeply  stirred  the  working  people,  the 
Paris  uprising  known  as  the  Commune  caused  most  exponents 
of  socialist  doctrine  to  be  expelled  from  the  country  and  left  the 
cause  leaderless. 

The  revival  may  be  said  to  have  begun  with  the  repatriation, 
in  1876,  of  the  political  exile  Jules  Guesde,  an  able  journalist, 
who  began  by  establi>hing  a  new  and  widely  read  socialist 
journal.  L'Egalite,  and  by  persuading  the  third  French  labor 
congress,  convened  at  Marseilles  in  [879,  to  declare  for  socialism 
and.  indeed,  to  take  tin-  name  of  Soi  ialist  Labor  Congress. 
Henceforth  the  trade-union  movement  was  dominated  by  so- 
cialist organizers  and  leaders,  who,  however,  could  not  agree 
among  themselves;  so  that  both  the  socialist  and  the  trade-union 
ranks  broke  into  petty,  contending  factions  whose  bickerings 
it  would  be  wearisome  to  describe.  By  1890  then-  wen'  five 
well-defined  socialist  groups,  counting  in  their  membership  some 
of  the  most  brilliant  journalists,  scholars,  and  lawyers  of  the 
country.  At  the  elections  of  [893  almost  half  a  million  socialist 
votes  were  cast,  and  forty  socialist  deputies  were  returned  to  the 
Chamber;  and  since,  under  the  Leadership  of   the  scholar  and 

1  For  a  brief  survey  of  the  beginnings  of  French  Bocialism  see  Ogg,  Economic 
Developm  ni  of  Modem  Europe,  Chap.  no.  See  also  K.  'I'.  Ely,  /•'/•<  nch  and  German 
Socialism  in  Modern  Tinas  (New  Yorl  W.  B.  Guthrie,  Socialism 

before  the  French  Revolution  (New  York,  [907);  J.  Peixotto,  The  French  Revolution 
and  Modem  French  Socialism  (New  Vork.  [901  1;  I'.  Louis,  /li^toire  da  socialisme 
francais  (Paris,  iooi);  <'■.  [sambert,  /.<  s  idles  wcialiste  en  Franct  de  1815  d  1848 
(Paris,  1905);  and  J.  A.  k.  Marriott,  The  French  Revolution  of  1848  in  its  Economic 
Aspect,  2  vols.  (Oxford,  T013). 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  49i 

orator  Jaures,  the  group  was  able  to  perfect  a  working  organiza- 
tion, the  beginning  of  socialism  as  a  factor  in  parliamentary 
proceedings  may  be  dated  from  this  point.  Presenting  the 
group  to  the  new  Chamber,  Jaures  declared  that  its  guiding 
motives  would  be  "  allegiance  to  the  republic  and  devotion  to 
the  cause  of  humanity."  Throughout  the  period  covered  by 
this  parliament  (1893-97)  the  program  of  socialism  was  first 
expounded  authoritatively  in  the  Chamber,  and  put  before  the 
country  with  clearness  and  power.  The  division  of  forces,  how- 
ever, persisted,  and  strong  effort  had  to  be  made  to  build  up  real 
party  unity.  Just  when,  in  1898-99,  the  outlook  for  union  was 
bright,  fresh  dissensions  arose  over  the  attitude  to  be  taken 
toward  the  Dreyfus  affair  and  over  the  acceptance  by  one  of  the 
leaders,  Millerand,  of  the  portfolio  of  commerce  in  the  ministry 
of  Waldeck-Rousseau.  The  parliamentary  group  was  com- 
pletely disrupted,  and  an  international  socialist  congress  at  Paris 
in  1900  was  compelled  by  the  resulting  situation  to  devote  its 
time  principally  —  and  fruitlessly,  as  it  proved  —  to  considera- 
tion of  the  "  cas  Millerand." 

Throughout  the  years  1900-05  the  socialist  forces  continued 
to  have  no  unity,  even  in  appearance.  On  the  contrary,  the 
bickerings  of  the  various  groups  were  constantly  aired  before  the 
country  and  before  the  world,  to  the  chagrin  of  socialist  leaders 
in  other  lands.  There  were  now  two  principal  factions,  or  so- 
called  parties.  One  was  the  Parti  Socialist  de  France,  or  Socialist 
party  of  France,  composed  principally  of  the  Guesdists.  The 
other  was  the  Parti  Socialist  Franqais,  or  French  Socialist  party, 
made  up  mainly  of  the  followers  of  Jaures.  The  policy  of  the  one 
was  to  stand  by  the  doctrine  of  Karl  Marx  and  refuse  to  com- 
promise or  to  cooperate  with  any  group  having  less  orthodox 
ideas  or  less  fixedness  of  purpose  than  itself.  The  policy  of  the 
other  was  to  "  penetrate  the  democracy  with  the  ideas  of  social- 
ism," and  to  do  it,  in  the  words  of  Jaures,  "  by  collaborating  with 
all  democrats,  yet  vigorously  distinguishing  one's  self  from  them." 

Acknowledging  freely,  in  a  remarkable  speech  at  the  Bordeaux 
congress  of  1903,  that  the  policy  of  opportunism  was  complicated, 
awkward,  and  certain  to  create  serious  difficulties  at  every  turn, 
Jaures  contended,  none  the  less,  that  in  it  alone  lay  hope  of  the 
achievement  of  the  socialist  purpose.  "  Guesde  is  wrong,"  he 
declared,  "in  thinking  .  .  .  that  the  state  is  exclusively  a  class- 
state,  upon  which  the  too  feeble  hand  of  the  proletariat  cannot 
yet  inscribe  the  smallest  portion  of  its  will.  In  a  democracy, 
in  a  republic  where  there  is  universal  suffrage,  the  state  is  not  for 


GO\  ERNMJ  N  I      i  H     i  i  ROPE 

the  proletarians  .1  refractory,  bard,  absolutely  impermeable  and 
impenetrable  block.  Penetration  has  begun  already.  In  mu- 
nicipalities, in  parliament,  in  the  central  government,  there  has 
begun  the  penetration  of  socialistic  and  proletarian  influence. 
.  .  .  It  is  in  part  penetrated  by  this  democratic,  popular, 
1  ialistic  Eorce,  and  if  we<  an  reasonably  hope  thai  by  organization, 
education,  and  propaganda  tin's  penetration  will  become  so  full, 
deep,  and  decisive,  that  in  time  l>y  accumulated  efforts  we  shall 
find  the  proletarian  and  sot  ialistic  state  to  base  replaced  the 
oligarchic  and  bourgeois  state,  then  perhaps  we  shall  be  aware 
of  having  entered  the  zone  of  socialism,  as  navigators  are  aware 
of  having  crossed  the  line  of  a  hemisphere  not  that  they  have 
been  able  to  sec  as  the}-  crossed  it  a  cord  stretched  over  the 
ocean  warning  them  of  their  passage,  hut  that  little  by  little 
they  have  been  led  into  a  new  hemisphere  by  the  progress  of 
their  ship."  1 

This  was  clearly  evolutionary,  not  revolutionary,  socialism; 
and  it  differed  from  the  socialism  of  the  Marxists  in  France 
quite  as  profoundly  as  the  socialism  of  the  Revisionists  differed 
from  that  of  the  Marxists  in  Germany.2  At  the  International 
Socialist  Congress  at  Amsterdam  in  1904  Jaures  was  compelled 
to  enter  the  lists  against  August  Bebel  in  defense  o\  his  ideas, 
and  there  occurred  one  of  the  most  notable  debates  "  a  titanic 
international  duel,"  it  has  been  aptly  designated  in  the  history 
of  the  socialist  movement.  The  burden  of  the  French  leader's 
argumenl  was  that,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  socialists 
of  Germany  in  congress  at  Dresden  in  [903  had  voted  over- 
whelmingly againsl  revisionism,  it  was  not  possible  to  pursue  an 
identical  policy  in  all  countries,  and  as  matters  were  in  France, 
where  the  proletariat  was  already  in  a  position  to  exercise  control 
over  the  government,  the  policy  of  opportunism  was  not  only 
permissible  hut  fundamentally  necessary.  The  logic  of  Bebel, 
however,  prevailed,  and  the  congress  voted  a  revised  resolution 
against  opportunism  based  upon  that  adopted  by  the  Germans 
at  Dresden. 

The  Unified  Socialist  Party.  I  he  outcome  of  the  Amsterdam 
meeting  cleared  the  way  for  socialist  unification  in  France.  The 
congress,  indeed,  voicing  the  desire  of  the  socialists  of  all  lands, 
urged,  and  practically  ordered,  thai  the  French  Factions  drop 
their  quarrels  and  combine  in  a  single  parly.  The  Guesdist 
element  had  stood  with   Bebel  and  the  non-opportunist  forces. 

luoted  in  R.  Hunter,  Socialists  at  Work    Me     v.  ork,  1908),  74. 

-  See  p.  ' '  . 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  493 

Jaures  and  his  followers  had  put  forth  their  best  effort  and  had 
been  defeated,  and  they  now  accepted  the  decision  loyally.  In 
1905,  at  the  congress  of  Rouen,  took  place  the  long  deferred 
fusion  of  the  two  groups  in  the  Parti  Socialist  Unijie,  or  Unified 
Socialist  party,  of  the  present  day,  designated  officially  as  the 
Section  Francaise  de  V Internationale  Ouvriere,  or  French  Section 
of  the  International  Workingnien's  Association. 

The  instrument  of  agreement  between  the  contracting  groups 
contained  the  following  notable  declarations:  (1)  "  The  Socialist 
party  is  a  class  party  which  has  for  its  aim  the  socialization  of  the 
means  of  production  and  exchange,  that  is  to  say,  to  transform 
the  present  capitalistic  society  into  a  collective  or  communistic 
society  by  means  of  the  political  and  economic  organization  of 
the  proletariat.  By  its  aims,  by  its  ideals,  by  the  power  which  it 
employs,  the  Socialist  party,  always  seeking  to  realize  the  im- 
mediate reforms  demanded  by  the  working  class,  is  not  a  party 
of  reforms,  but  a  party  of  class  war  and  revolution.  (2)  The 
members  of  Parliament  elected  by  the  party  form  a  unique 
group  opposed  to  all  the  factions  of  the  bourgeois  parties.  The 
Socialist  group  in  Parliament  must  refuse  to  sustain  all  of  those 
means  which  assure  the  domination  of  the  bourgeoisie  in  govern- 
ment and  their  maintenance  in  power ;  must  therefore  refuse  to 
vote  for  military  appropriations,  appropriations  for  colonial 
conquest,  secret  funds,  and  the  budget.  In  Parliament  the 
Socialist  group  must  consecrate  itself  to  defending  and  extending 
the  political  liberties  and  rights  of  the  working  classes  and  to  the 
realization  of  those  reforms  which  ameliorate  the  conditions  of 
life  in  the  struggle  for  existence  of  the  working  class.  (3)  There 
shall  be  complete  freedom  of  discussion  in  the  press  concerning 
questions  of  principle  and  policy,  but  the  conduct  of  all  the 
Socialist  publications  must  be  strictly  in  accord  with  the  de- 
cisions of  the  national  congress  as  interpreted  by  the  executive 
committee  of  the  party."  1 

The  united  party  grew  rapidly  in  membership  and  in  influence. 
Although  founded  in  reaction  against  opportunism,  it  has  steadily 
pursued  a  political  policy.  It  has  consistently  sought  to  increase 
its  strength  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  and  its  members  have 
had  no  hesitation  in  accepting  municipal,  departmental,  and 
national  offices ;  although  it  should  be  added  that  certain  elements 
in  the  party  never  reconciled  themselves  to  the  idea  of  coopera- 
tion with  the  bourgeois  groups,  especially  in  the  ministry.  In 
1885,  when  the  socialists  made  their  first  concerted  effort  to  in- 

1  S.  P.  Orth,  Socialism  and  Democracy  in  Europe  (New  York,  1913),  289-291. 


4Q4  GOVERNMENTS  01     I  UROPE 

Buenc<  the  results  of  a  parliamentary  election,  the  total  number 
of  votes  polled  by  their  candidates  was  bul  so.ooo.  In  [889  their 
popular  vote  was  1 20,000,  and  in  [898,  700,000,  or  almost  twenty 
per  cent  of  the  total.  In  1910  the  vote  was  1,200,000,  and  the 
number  of  socialist  deputies  was  raised  to  [05,  of  whom  75  were 
identified  with  the  Unified  party.  At  the  elections  of  [914  the 
total  socialist  quota  became  [32.  Of  these  members,  102  be- 
d  to  the  Unified  party,  which  alone  casl  1.250,000  vote-; 
the  other  30  were  "Independent  Socialists."  Since  1910  the 
Unified  party  has  either  had  a  majority  or  has  lacked  but  little 
of  it  in  most  of  the  cities  and  large  towns  throughout  the  country. 

Memories  of  the  differences  between  the  Guesdistand  Jauresite 
groups  could  not  be  instantly  obliterated.  They  have  not  yet 
wholly  disappeared.  But  since  1905  the  unity  of  the  party, 
although  at  times  severely  tested,  has  withstood  every  strain 
that  has  been  put  upon  it ;  not  even  the  (beat  War  produced  any 
extensive  disruption.  Xot  that  the  Unified  party  include-  all 
French  socialists.  There  are  the  Independent  Socialists;  also 
the  Radical  Socialists  —  men  like  Briand,  Viviani,  and  Mil- 
lerand,  who,  as  has  been  said,  consider  themselves  socialists,  and 
who,  in  other  countries,  would  be  identified  with  organizations  of 
a  strictly  socialist  character.  The  hope  of  organized  socialism 
in  France  lies,  however,  with  the  Unified  party.  As  is  true  of  the 
( ierman  Social  Democracy,  the  number  of  bona  fide,  dues-paying 
members  of  this  party  is  very  much  smaller  than  the  number  of 
votes  polled  by  the  candidates  whom  it  places  in  the  field.  In 
1905,  the  date  of  unification,  the  number  of  dues-paying  members 
was  only  27,000.  By  1908  the  number  had  risen  to  52,000,  and 
in  1914  it  was  68,900.  The  principal  reason  for  such  slowness  of 
growth  is  to  be  found  in  the  policy  of  the  trade-unions,  which, 
while  not  discouraging  their  members  from  casting  their  votes  for 
socialist  candidate-,  have  generally  held  aloof  from  the  socialist 
organizations.  The  party  is  governed  by  a  congress,  meeting 
annually  in  some  important  town ;  and  there  is  a  committee  to 
administer  affairs  during  intervals  between  sessions. 

The  party  program  lays  stress  principally  upon  the  socialization 
of  the  instrumentalities  of  production  and  exchange,  involving 
the  supplanting  of  the  capitalistic  by  a  collectivist  organization 
of  the  state;  and  the  means  to  be  employed  to  this  end  is  the 
acquisition  of  control  over  the  state  through  the  unification  of 
the  industrial  classes  in  support  of  (lie  party's  policies.  That, 
despite  its  opportunism,  the  party  stands  by  its  traditional  ideal 
is  indicated  by  a  resolution  adopted  by  the  congress  at  Limoges 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  495 

in  1907.  "  The  congress,"  it  was  affirmed,  "  considering  that 
any  change  in  the  personnel  of  a  capitalist  government  could  not 
in  any  way  modify  the  fundamental  policy  of  the  party,  puts  the 
proletariat  on  its  guard  against  the  insufficiency  of  a  program, 
even  the  most  advanced,  of  the  '  democratic  bourgeoisie  ' ;  it 
reminds  the  workers  that  their  liberation  will  only  be  possible 
through  the  social  ownership  of  capital,  that  there  is  no  socialism 
except  in  the  socialist  party,  organized  and  unified,  and  that  its 
representation  in  Parliament,  while  striving  to  realize  the  reforms 
which  will  augment  the  force  of  the  action  and  the  demands  of 
the  proletariat,  shall  at  the  same  time  oppose  unceasingly,  to  all 
restricted  and  too  often  illusory  programs,  the  reality  and  in- 
tegrity of  the  socialist  ideal." 

A  striking  aspect  of  socialism  in  France  is  the  extent  to  which 
the  creed  permeates  all  classes  and  professions.  In  England 
members  of  the  educated  classes  belong  mainly  to  one  of  the 
two  great  historic  political  parties,  and  in  Germany  there  were, 
prior  to  19 18,  no  socialists  in  the  governing  class  and  com- 
paratively few  in  the  professions.  In  France,  on  the  other 
hand,  many  men  of  education,  wealth,  and  social  standing  have 
been  willing  to  associate  themselves  with  the  masses,  not  only  as 
leaders,  but  as  private  advocates  of  the  enthronement  of  the 
people.  Most  of  the  leaders,  indeed,  are  of  bourgeois  extraction. 
A  recent  writer  has  pointed  out  that  among  the  representatives 
of  the  Unified  party  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  after  the  elec- 
tions of  1 910  there  were  only  thirty  workingmen  and  trade- 
union  officials,  while  there  were  eleven  professors  and  teachers, 
seven  journalists,  seven  lawyers,  seven  farmers,  six  physicians, 
and  two  engineers.1  This  very  cosmopolitanism  of  the  move- 
ment leads  one  to  doubt  whether  there  is  any  chance  that  the 
more  radical  portions  of  the  party  program  will  ever  be  realized. 
Certainly  many  men  who  at  present  lend  their  support  to  the 
party  are  in  sympathy  with  its  ultimate  ideal  in  only  a  broad 
and  theoretic  way.  It  may  be  added  that  the  temper  of  the 
French  people  as  a  whole  runs  counter  to  the  socialistic  aspira- 
tion. For  while,  as  has  been  demonstrated  on  many  historic 
occasions,  no  people  is  more  ready  to  theorize  and  to  talk  radi- 
calism, it  is  just  as  true  that  no  people  clings  more  tenaciously 
to  its  property  and  its  property  rights.  The  French  are  a  nation 
of  small  farmers  and  shopkeepers,  and  while  they  have  been 
persuaded  to  accept  the  nationalization  of  railways  and  various 
other  forms  of  collectivism,  they  would  be  loath  indeed  to  divest 

1  Orth,  Socialism  and  Democracy  in  Europe,  116. 


!«»'• 


GOVERNMEN  fS   <>l     El  ROPE 


themselves  of  their  traditional  and  treasured  rights  of  private 
property.1 

Parties  and  Ministries  during    the   Great    War.       The   war 
inevitably  forced  party  politics  out  of  the  accustomed  channels, 
although  the  effe<  I  was  not  so  pronounced  as  in  England,  because 
of  the  relative  fluidity  of  Fren<  h  party  alignments  under  normal 
as  well  as  abnormal  conditions.     It  was,  for  example,  far  easier 
for  France  than  for  England  to  come  to  the  policy  of  a  coalition 
war  cabinet  ;  all  French  cabinets,  in  peace  as  in  war.  arc  coali- 
tions.    When  the  war  began,  a  ministry  formed  by  the  Radical 
Socialist  Viviani  in  June,  1914,  was  in  office,  and  the  issues  ab- 
sorbing public  interest  were  the  repeal  of  the  three- year  service 
law  and  the  imposition  of  a  heavy  income  tax.     'The  outbreak 
of  hostilities  consolidated  public  sentiment,  banished  issues  that 
were  not  related   directly   to   the   international   situation,   and 
brought  all  parties  and  groups  into  active  support  of  the  govern- 
ment in  the  prosecution  of  the  war.      Doubt  about  tin-  attitude 
of  the  Socialists  in  such  a  contingency  was  quickly  dispelled; 
for  although  Jaures  opposed  the  country's  entrance  into  the  war 
and  sought  to  organize  a  protest  strike,-  the  great  majority  of 
leaders  and  members  of  the  party,  including  the  radical  anti- 
militarist  wing,  rallied  unhesitatingly  to  the  national  cause  as 
soon  as  it  appeared  that  the  French  government  had  done  every- 
thing in  its  power  to  avert  war  and  that  Belgium  and  France 
were   to  be  invaded   by   the   Germans.     After  the   first   serious 
reverses  in  the  held,  Viviani  reorganized  the  ministry  (late  in 
August,  1914)  as  a  government  of  national  defense.     ( ircat  figures 
like  Delcasse,  Briand,  and  Millerand  were  brought  in;   and  tire 
Unified  Socialist  party  delegated  as  its  rep  resent  at  tyes  the  anti- 
militarists  Guesde  and  Sembat,  although  making  it  clear  that 
this  was  done,  not  with  a  view  to  a  political  coalition,  but  solely 
to  promote  the  defense  of  the  country.'5     France,  there-fore,  ob- 
tained a  broad-based  war  cabinet,  composed  of  representatives  of 
all  parties,  some  nine  months  before  England  arrived  at  this  stage. 

1  On  Freni  h  sew  ialism  sine  e  [870  see  Orth,  S<«i<i!is)>r  and  Democracy  ;>i  Europe, 
Chap,  v;  R.  Hunter,  Socialists  at  li  ork,  Chap,  iii;  Bodley,  France,  II,  463  486; 
M    p,,lM.    Tea  New  York,  19 18) ;   G.  Weill,  Histoire  du  mouvement  social 

rn  1    ,  ided.,  Paris,  191 1),  210-343;    H.  Lagardelle,  Le  socialisms 

ouvrier  (Paris,  [911      1      >  i;    V    Millerand,  Lc  socialist!  e  (Pans,  1903); 

and  P.  Louis,  Histoire  du  socialisms  franqaise  (Paris,  [901). 
<  in  July  ji  he  sinati  d  by  a  war  fanatic 

iWalling,  Uists  and  the  War,  Chap.  riii.     Viviani  henceforth  held  the 

president  \  of  the  1  ouni  il,  i.e.,  the  premiership,  withoul  porl  Folio,  and  <  iuesde  was 
likewise  minister  withoul  portfolio.  This  meant  the  revival  temporarily  of  a 
practice  which  had  not  been  followed  since  the  Second  Empire. 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  497 

This  policy  of  "  comprehension  "  was  maintained  throughout 
the  remainder  of  the  war  period.  None  the  less,  political  cleav- 
ages always  tended  to  reappear,  and,  as  in  England,  a  distinct 
parliamentary  opposition  gradually  established  itself.  The 
principal  element  in  this  opposition  was  the  Unified  and  Inde- 
pendent Socialists.  As  early  as  October,  1915,  the  socialist 
deputies,  by  withholding  their  support,  caused  the  Viviani 
ministry  to  give  way  to  a  "ministry  of  all  the  talents"  pre- 
sided over  by  Briand  —  a  ministry  of  twenty-three  members 
(the  largest  in  the  history  of  the  Third  Republic)  representing 
all  parties,  and  including  no  fewer  than  six  former  premiers.1 
This  ministry  was  almost  constantly  under  the  fire  of  Socialist  and 
Radical  Socialist  deputies,  who  combated  the  tendency  of  the 
ministers  and  general  staff  to  leave  Parliament  in  the  dark  on  the 
state  of  military  operations  and  to  expect  from  it  instant  com- 
pliance with  whatever  demands  were  made  upon  it.  Harassed 
by  frequent  interpellations  and  votes  of  confidence,  the  Briand 
ministry  broke  up  in  the  following  December,  although  a  new 
ministry  with  Briand  at  its  head  succeeded ;  and  this  second 
Briand  war  ministry  managed  to  retain  office  until  the  spring  of 
1917. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  reorganization  of  December, 
1 91 6,  which  gave  England  a  new  sort  of  war  cabinet,  greatly 
reduced  in  size,  had  a  close  parallel  in  France.  When  recon- 
structing his  ministry  in  the  month  mentioned,  Briand  reduced 
the  membership  from  twenty-two  to  ten  by  omitting  ministers 
without  portfolio  and  by  abolishing  certain  portfolios  and  com- 
bining others,  and  also  placed  the  ultimate  responsibility  for  the 
conduct  of  the  war  in  a  subdivision  of  the  cabinet  known  as  a 
"  war  council,"  consisting  of  the  premier  and  the  ministers  of 
foreign  affairs,  finance,  war,  marine,  and  armament  and  war  in- 
dustries. The  experiment  was  not  notably  successful,  although 
it  was  wrecked  rather  by  the  maladroitness  of  the  new  war 
minister,  General  Lyautey,  in  dealing  with  Parliament  than  by 
any  defects  of  the  system  itself. 

Unable  to  command  united  support,  the  second  Briand  war  min- 
istry resigned,  in  March,  191 7,  and  was  succeeded  by  a  ministry 
presided  over  by  the  veteran  cabinet  officer  Ribot,  and  repre- 
senting all  elements  except  certain  portions  of  the  Right.  The 
Socialists  gave  their  adherence.  None  the  less,  they  continued 
to  be  censorious,  and  in  the  autumn  of  1917  they  precipitated 

1  Briand  took  the  portfolio  of  foreign  affairs.  There  were  five  ministers  without 
portfolio. 

2K 


498  GOVERNMEN  rs  OF   EI  ROPE 

a  fresh  series  of  cabinel  upsets.  First,  the  Ribot  ministry 
wu>  overthrown,  in  September,  as  a  resull  of  exposures  involv- 
ing the  Radical  Socialist  minister  of  the  interior  Malvy.  Two 
months  later  a  ministry  organized  by  the  Eormer  war  minister 
Painleve\  which  the  Socialist  deputy  Thomas  declined  to  enter, 
was  similarly  toppled  over  by  debates  on  the  war  scandals.1  The 
accession  of' the  ministry  of  Clemenceau  at  this  juncture,  how- 
ever, rotorcd  the  political  equilibrium,  although  several  impor- 
tant elements  were  not  represented  in  it  ;  and  notwithstanding 
repeated  assaults  upon  it,  this  ministry  survived  the  war.  the 
armistice,  and  the  peace  negotiations,  and  retired  only  in  January, 

alter  the  parliamentary  and  presidential  elections  had 
indicated  that  its  days  of  usefulness  were  past.  It  was  there- 
lore  one  of  the  two  or  three  most  long-lived  ministries  under 
the  Third  Republic.  The  succeeding  cabinet,  with  Millerand 
as  premier,  is  in  office  at  the  date  of  writing  (June.   1920). 2 

Party  Reorganization,  1918  20:  the  Elections  of  iqiq. —  By 
suspending  party  activities  and  binding  all  elements  together  in 
a  union  sacree,  dedicated  to  the  defense  of  the  country,  the  war 
theoretically  crystallized  and  perpetuated  the  party  alignments 
which  existed  in  1914.  At  all  events,  the  formation  of  new 
parties  was  banned,  and  the  presumption  was  created  that  after 
the  conflict  was  over  Action  Liberate,  Radicals,  Radical  So- 
cialists, and  Unified  Socialists  would  resume  their  programs  and 
conflicts  on  the  customary  lines.  Had  the  war  been  a  brief 
affair,  this  presumption  would  probably  have  proved  well 
founded,  although  of  this  it  is,  of  course,  impossible  to  be  sure. 
But  the  prolongation  and  severity  of  the  struggle  created  a  state 
of  the  public  mind  wholly  unfavorable  to  the  recrudescence  of  the 
old  party  situation.  The  agonizing  experiences  of  war  and  the 
baffling  problems  of  peace  made  former  party  strife  appear 
petty,  and  even  sordid.  The  overthrow  of  able  ministries  and 
the  costly  interruptions  of  vital  public  business  produced  by  out- 
bursts of  party  feeling  created  disgust.  The  failures,  the  de- 
lays, the  scandals,  brought  discredit  on  the  former  political  life 
and  on  the  professional  politicians,  and  prompted  a  desire  for 
political   aiti  ity  of  a  new,   freer,  and   more  elevated  kind.     So 

'  It  should  be  added  thai  few  of  the  ministries  thai  resigned  during  the  war  period 

(]j,!  :   ih.-:  could  not  command  a  majority  in  the  Chamber  ol  Deputies. 

\-  a  rule,  they  preferred  t<>  retire  when  the  opposition  became  so  Formidable  as  to 
impede  or  embarrass  the  government  in  the  conduct  of  the  war,  without  waiting 

a  formal  repudiation  by  the  Chamber. 

2  The 'successive  mini-trie.-,  of  the  war  period  are  characterized  in  M.  Laurent, 
gouvernements  de  guerre,"  in  Grande  Rev.,  July,  Aug.,  Sept.,  1919. 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  499 

long  as  hostilities  continued,  little  or  nothing  tangible  cameof 
this  feeling.  But  when,  after  the  armistice,  a  nation-wide 
tourney  of  elections  —  parliamentary,  departmental,  and  com- 
munal —  began  to  loom  up,  the  new  attitude  found  immediate 
and  practical  modes  of  expression. 

In  the  first  place,  the  old  parties,  realizing  the  discredit  into 
which  they  had  fallen,  strove  to  refurbish  their  programs  and 
to  adapt  themselves  to  the  new  state  of  the  public  mind,  in  the 
hope  of  holding  their  ground  at  the  forthcoming  elections.  In 
this  they  were  but  indifferently  successful;  and  at  least  one  of 
them,  the  Radical  Socialist  party,  dissolved  and  practically 
disappeared  in  the  process.  This  party  had  never  been  in  full 
agreement  on  more  than  one  important  principle,  i.e.,  anti- 
clericalism  ;  and  now  that  the  main  fight  against  clericalism  was 
over,  the  party  had  become  a  mere  group  of  professional  politi- 
cians. Unable  to  act  together  in  allying  themselves  with  some 
more  hopefully  situated  group,  its  members  lost  touch  and  scat- 
tered in  all  directions.1  The  Unified  Socialists  were  more  suc- 
cessful than  the  rest  in  regaining  their  old  position,  and  in  building 
up  an  impressive  morale;  although  the  extremists'  avowals  of 
sympathy  with  bolshevism  and  the  steady  succession  of  strikes 
by  whose  means  the  trade-unions  sought  to  establish  "  the  dic- 
tatorship of  the  proletariat  "  cost  the  party  much  support. 

No  less  important  than  the  efforts  of  the  old  parties  to  rehabili- 
tate themselves  was  the  organization,  after  the  armistice,  of 
sundry  new  parties  and  coalitions.  Of  these,  four  attained 
some  distinction.  One  was  the  Democratic  Nouvelle  ("  New 
Democracy"),  which  attacked  the  alleged  encroachments  of 
Parliament  on  the  president  and  ministers,  called  for  complete 
separation  of  legislative  and  executive  powers,  urged  greater 
simplicity  and  directness  in  government,  denounced  bolshevism, 
and  preached  a  new  uprising  of  democratic  energy.  The  second 
was  a  party  which  called  itself  the  "  Fourth  Republic,"  and  whose 
cardinal  tenet  was  "  regionalism,"  i.e.,  the  reorganization  of 
government  and  administration,  of  transport  and  tariff  regu- 
lation, and  indeed  of  substantially  all  political  and  economic  life, 
on  a  decentralized,  regional  basis.  The  other  two  new  parties 
were  associations  or  confederations,  loosely  organized  with  a 
view  to  bringing  together  elements  drawn  from  very  diverse 
sources.     One  —  the    Bloc    National   Republicain  —  is    a    com- 

1  The  dissolution  was  made  the  more  complete  by  the  discredit  which  the  party 
suffered  from  the  fall  and  disgrace  of  its  two  principal  leaders  in  the  war  period, 
Caillaux  and  Malvy.     See  p.  464. 


5oo  GOVERNM]  \  rS   OF    EUROPE 

bination  of  Republicans  ranging  in  degree  oi  conservatism  from 
the  Radical  Socialists  (man)  oJ  whom  have  identified  them- 
selves with  the  new  bloi  )  to  the  Action  Liberate,  and  ii  stn 
anti  bolshevism,  social  order  and  preservation,  secularization 
of  education,  maintenance  of  the  union  sacrie,  and  support  of 
the  League  of  Nations.  The  other  group,  the  Union  Republi- 
caine  et  Detnocratique,  was  intended  by  its  founders  to  be  not 
merely  a  federation  of  the  parties  of  the  Left,  but  a  great  national 
democratic  party  equally  opposed  to  bolshevism  and  to  reac- 
tion. Finding  a  portion  of  its  field  preempted  by  the  Bloc 
National,  it  has  pushed  its  center  of  gravity  farther  toward  the 
Extreme  Left  than  was  originally  planned.  It  remains  quite 
separate  from  the  Unified  Socialist  party.  Hut  it  finds  the 
ground  which  is  left  for  it  to  occupy  between  that  occupied  by 
the  Unified  Socialists  and  that  taken  by  the  Bloc  National 
decidedly  cramped. 

The  new  electoral  law1  was  placed  on  the  statute  book  in 
July,  1919,  and,  notwithstanding  the  demand  of  Briand  and 
other  public  men  that  the  people  be  given  more  time  in  which 
both  to  familiarize  themselves  with  the  new  method  of  voting 
and  to  study  the  questions  before  the  country,  the  election  of  a 
new  Chamber  of  Deputies  was  set  for  November  16.  In  view 
of  the  multiplicity  and  confusion  of  parties,  new  and  old,  it  was 
difficult  to  discern  any  single  clear  issue  in  the  contest  except, 
in  a  general  way,  that  between  the  supporters  and  the  opponents 
of  bolshevist-tinged,  revolutionary  socialism.  On  this  funda- 
mental question  the  nation  spoke  with  no  uncertain  voice.  It 
inflicted  a  severe  defeat  upon  the  Socialists  of  all  stripes,  espe- 
cially the  revolutionary  Unified  party,  and  it  proportionately 
reenforced  the  more  conservative  sections  of  the  Chamber's 
membership.  The  Socialists  went  into  the  contest  divided 
among  themselves,  and  although  they  polled  some  1.700,000 
votes,  as  compared  with  1.400,000  in  1914,  they  suffered  a  net 
loss  of  about  forty  seats.  It  is  said  that  a  large  section  of  the 
proletariat  abstained  from  voting  on  anti-parliamentarist 
grounds.  However  that  may  be,  sufficient  explanation  of  the 
Socialist  reverse  is  found  in  the  unprecedented  cooperation  of 
the  conservative  elements,  mainly  through  the  medium  of  the 
Bloc  National.  It  is  true  that  the  opponents  of  socialism  failed 
in  most  of  the  constituencies  to  follow  the  admonition  sent  out 
from  Paris  to  put  only  one  list  of  candidates  in  the  field  and  to 
mass  their  strength  on  this  list;  as  a  rule,  at  leasl  two  or  three 

1  Sec  pp.   424  -.427. 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  50 1 

lists  were  offered  by  different  Republican  groups  in  a  department . 
But,  even  so,  it  is  universally  agreed  that  the  Socialists  fared 
worse  under  the  new  system  of  voting  Hum  they  would  have 
under  send  in  uninominal.  In  the  four  constituencies  into 
which  Paris  was  divided  they  secured  only  ten  seats  out  of  a 
total  of  fifty-four.1 

In  summary,  the  salient  facts  in  the  party  situation  at  the 
date  of  writing  are:  (1)  the  superimposition  of  the  new  group- 
ings that  have  been  mentioned  upon  the  party  divisions  of  191 4, 
obscuring  them  without  entirely  blotting  them  out  or  neces- 
sarily in  all  cases  superseding  them ;  (2)  the  virtual  disappear- 
ance, at  least  temporarily,  of  the  Radical  Socialist  party ;  (3)  an 
accentuated  tendency  of  organized  socialism  toward  revolution- 
ism, including  bolshevism ;  and  (4)  an  increased  readiness  on 
the  part  of  the  less  radical  elements  to  combine  in  the  defense 
of  the  present  political  and  social  order  against  those  who  would 
overthrow  it.  It  would  be  futile  to  attempt  to  forecast  the 
further  developments  that  a  decade,  or  even  a  single  year,  may 
bring. 

General  Aspects  of  French  Party  Politics.  —  From  the  fore- 
going account  it  is  manifest  that  political  parties  of  the  sort 
with  which  Americans  and  Englishmen  are  familiar  do  not  exist 
in  France.  Certain  fundamental  tendencies  exist  —  reactionary, 
moderate,  radical,  socialist,  syndicalist ;  and  it  is  they,  rather 
than  formal  party  organizations,  that  endure  from  year  to  year 
and  from  decade  to  decade.  The  groups  that  spring  up  around 
some  inspiring  leader,  and  for  a  time  give  these  tendencies 
expression,  dissolve  almost  as  readily  as  they  form.  They  exist 
rather  in  Parliament  than  in  the  nation,  and  are  apt  to  take  shape 
rather  after  a  parliament  has  come  into  session  than  before. 
Between  sessions  —  and  yet  more,  between  quadrennial  elec- 
tions —  the  political  scene  may  change  completely.  Deputies 
and  senators  pass  readily  from  one  group  to  another,  sometimes 
belonging  to  two  simultaneously ;  and  the  groups  show  hardly 
more  stability  in  their  affiliations  one  with  another  than  in  their 
internal  composition  and  organization.  Aside  from  the  Unified 
Socialists,  and  perhaps  the  Action  Liberate,  party  organization 
and  party  discipline  throughout  the  country  can  hardly  be  said 

1  P.  Bureau,  "Les  elections,"  in  Rev.  Hebdom.,  Nov.  1,  1919;  T.  Baines,  "The 
French  Elections,"  in  New  Europe,  Nov.  27,  1919;  A.  Pauphilet,  "The  French 
Socialists,"  ibid.,  Feb.  12, 1920.  A  full  statistical  account,  with  an  exposition  of  the 
new  electoral  law,  will  be  found  in  G.  Lachapelle,  Lcs  elections  generates  du  16 
Novembre  iqi g  (Paris,  1920).  It  may  be  added  that  in  the  senatorial  elections  of 
January,  1920,  the  Socialists  won  their  first  seat  in  the  upper  chamber. 


502  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

to  exist.  Candidates  for  Parliament  announce  themselves,  <»r 
are  announced  by  their  friends;  they  make  their  nun  platforms 
and  conduct  their  own  campaigns.  Occasionally  a  great  issue, 
such  as  clericalism,  dominates  in  an  ele<  toral  contest  to  such  a 
degree  that  the  will  of  the  nation  can  be  clearly  tested.  Hut  as  a 
rule  the  issues  are  so  numerous,  localized,  personal,  and  confused 
that  a  study  of  the  electoral  returns  leaves  only  a  blurred  impres- 
sion. This  was  eminently  true  of  the  elections  of  iqio,  and 
scarcely  less  so  of  those  of  [914  and  [919.  Nor  is  there  any- 
thing to  indicate  that  the  English  or  American  forms  of  party 
organization  and  morale  will  ever  grow  up. 

No  complete  explanation  of  the  nebulous  and  shifting  char- 
acter of  French  party  alignments  has  ever  been  propounded. 
Certain  reasons  for  it,  however,  are  perfectly  clear.  The  first 
is  the  historical  condition  under  which  the  party  system  of  the 
Third  Republic  had  its  beginning.  Writing  twenty  years  ago, 
when  a  situation  that  no  longer  exists  was  still  a  reality,  the 
historian  Seignobos  said  :  "  Power  cannot  pass  alternately,  as  in 
England  and  the  United  States,  from  the  party  on  one  side  over 
to  the  party  in  opposition.  This  alternation,  this  game  of  see- 
saw between  two  opposing  parties,  which  certain  theorists  have 
declared  to  be  the  indispensable  condition  of  every  parliamentary 
regime,  does  not  exist,  and  has  never  existed,  in  France.  The 
reason  why  is  simple.  If  the  party  of  the  Right,  hostile  to  the 
Republic,  should  come  into  power,  the  temptation  would  be  too 
strong  for  them  to  maintain  themselves  there  by  establishing  an 
autocratic  government,  which  would  put  an  end  to  the  parlia- 
mentary regime,  as  in  1851.  The  electors  are  conscious  of  this 
tendency  of  the  Conservatives,  and  will  not  run  the  risk  of 
intrusting  the  Republic  to  them.  When  they  are  discontented 
with  the  Republicans  in  power,  they  vote  for  other  Republicans. 
Thus,  new  Republican  groups  are  being  ceaselessly  formed, 
while  the  old  ones  fall  to  pieces."  ! 

A  second  important  consideration  is  the  tendency  of  the 
Frenchman  to  be  theoretical  rather  than  practical  in  his  politics. 
"  He  is  inclined,"  writes  Lowell,  "  to  pursue  an  ideal,  striving 
to  realize  his  conception  of  a  perfect  form  of  society,  and  is 
reluctant  to  give  up  any  part  of  it  for  the  sake  of  attaining  so 
much  as  lies  within  his  reach.  Such  a  tendency  naturally  gives 
rise  to  a  number  of  groups,  each  with  a  separate  ideal,  and  each 
unwilling  to  make  the  sacrifice  that  is  necessary  for  a  fusion  into 
a  great  party.     In  short,   the  intensity  of  political  sentiment 

1  "The  Political  Parties  of  France,"  in  Internal.  Monthly,  Aug.,  1901,  155. 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  503 

prevents  the  development  of  real  political  issues.  To  the  French- 
man, public  questions  have  an  absolute  rather  than  a  relative 
or  a  practical  bearing,  and,  therefore,  he  cares  more  for  principles 
and  opinions  than  for  facts.  This  tendency  is  shown  in  the 
programs  of  the  candidates,  which  are  apt  to  be  philosophic 
documents  instead  of  statements  of  concrete  policy,  and,  although 
published  at  great  length,  often  give  a  comparatively  small  idea 
of  the  position  of  the  author  on  the  immediate  question  of  the 
day.  .  .  .  The  inability  to  organize  readily  in  politics  has  this 
striking  result,  that  vehement  as  some  of  the  groups  are,  and 
passionate  as  is  their  attachment  to  their  creeds,  they  make 
little  effort  to  realize  their  aims  by  associating  together  their 
supporters  in  all  parts  of  the  country  for  concerted  action."  * 
Finally,  it  may  be  pointed  out  that  certain  features  of  electoral 
and  parliamentary  procedure  have  always  obstructed,  or  at  all 
events  have  not  promoted,  the  rise  of  stable  parties.  The 
balloUage,  as  employed  prior  to  1919,  directly  encouraged  multi- 
plicity of  candidacies,  and  hence  of  party  groups.  The  com- 
mittee system  (in  so  far  as  standing  committees  chosen  by  the 
respective  chambers  have  not  been  instituted)  interferes  with  the 
control  of  the  cabinet  over  legislation  and  hinders  the  growth  of 
party  responsibility.  The  practice  of  interpellation  is  ruinous 
to  ministerial  stability,   and,   therefore,   to  party  equilibrium.2 

1  Governments  and  Parlies  in  Continental  Europe,  I,  105-107. 

3  The  best  accounts  in  English  of  French  parties  and  party  conditions  —  al- 
though written  long  ago  —  are  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parlies,  I,  Chap,  ii,  and 
Bodley,  France,  II,  Bk.  iv,  Chaps,  i-viii.  The  principal  French  treatise  is  Jacques, 
Les  partis  politiques  sons  la  iiie  republique,  which  includes  in  an  appendix  the  official 
rules  and  platforms  of  the  groups  as  they  stood  at  the  time  of  publication  (1013). 
Useful  articles  include  C.  Seignobos,  "The  Political  Parties  of  France,"  in  Internal. 
Monthly,  Aug.,  1901 ;  C.  Dawbarn,  "Patriotism  and  Party  in  France,"  in  Fortn. 
Rev.,  Aug.,  1913 ;  J.  Meline,  "Les  partis  dans  la  republique,"  in  Rev.  Polit.  et  Pari., 
Jan.,  1900;  M.  H.  Doniol,  "Les  idees  politiques  et  les  partis  en  France  durant  le 
xixe  siecle,"  in  Rev.  dit  Droit  Public,  May- June,  1902;  A.  Charpentier,  "Radicaux 
et  socialistes  de  1902  a.  1912,"  in  La  Nouvelle  Rev.,  May  1,  1912;  and  J.  Reinach, 
"Political  Parties  in  France,"  in  N.  Y.  Nation,  Dec.  14,  1918. 


2.    IlW.Y 


CHAPTER    XXVIII 

CONSTITUTIONAL   DEVELOPMENT   IN   THE    NINETEENTH 
CENTURY 

Napoleonic  Transformations.  The  master:  forces  in  the  poli- 
tic- of  Europe  since  the  French  Revolution  have  been  the  twin 
principles  of  nationality  and  democracy;  and  nowhere  have 
these  principles  been  more  fruitful  than  in  the  long  disrupted, 
inert,  and  misgoverned  peninsula  of  Italy.  The  awakening  of 
the  Italian  people  to  a  new  consciousness  of  unity  and  strength, 
and  to  a  new  aspiration  and  hope,  may  be  said  to  date  from  the 
Xapoleonic  invasion  of  1796;  and  the  first  stages  of  the  Risor- 
gimento,  or  "  resurrection,"  belong  to  the  period  of  French 
domination,  which  continued,  speaking  broadly,  to  the  collapse 
of  Napoleon's  power  in  1814.  At  the  opening  of  this  period  the 
heavy  hand  of  two  foreign  dynasties  lay  upon  far  the  larger 
part  of  the  country.  The  Austrian  I  lab-burgs  ruled  the  rich 
duchies  of  Milan  (including  Mantua)  and  Tuscany,  and  had  a 
preponderating  influence  in  Modena.  The  Spanish  Bourbons, 
—  "  the  rotten  branch  of  the  most  rotten  trunk  in  the  forest  of 
European  monarchies"  -held  the  duchy  of  Parma  and  the 
important  kingdom  of  Xaples,  including  Sicily.  Of  independent 
states  there  were  six:  the  kingdom  of  Sardinia  (including 
Piedmont,  the  island  of  Sardinia,  and  nominally  Savoy  and  Nice), 
where  alone  in  all  Italy  lingered  some  measure  of  native  politi- 
cal vitality;1  the  Papal  States;  the  petty  monarchies  of  Lucca 
and  San  Marino  ;   and  the  two  venerable  republics  of  Venice  and 

1  "Here  at  least  there  was  a  national  monarchy  and  a  national  nobility,  though 
little  else  thai  can  weigh  in  the  scales  <>f  civilization  :  n<>  art,  or  music,  or  science, 
or  literature,  <>r  in  Fad  any  contribution  to  the  splendid  sum  of  Italian  culture; 
a  land  of  prie  ti  ran  andsupei  h  for  the  language  of  polite  society, 

andapatoii  more  akin  to  Provencal  than  Italian  in  the  tapleconvei  c  of  the  people; 
.1  tame  count r  .  dull  a    rectangular  Turin  itself,  but  posse  sing  the  virtue  thai  be- 
to  a  simple,  robust,  and  loyal  community."     Fisher,  Republican  Tradition 
in  Europe,  144. 

504 


CONSTITUTIONAL  DEVELOPMENT   IN   ITALY      505 

Genoa,  now  governed  by  close  oligarchies,  and  long  since  shorn  of 
their  empires,  their  maritime  power,  and  their  economic  and  polit- 
ical importance.  Absolutism  reigned  everywhere ;  and  in  most 
of  the  states,  especially  those  of  the  south,  absolutism  meant  both 
corruption  and  oppression. 

During  the  two  decades  which  covered  the  public  career  of 
Napoleon  it  fell  to  France  to  topple  to  the  ground  this  archaic 
political  order,  to  terminate  the  control  of  Austria  and  to  sub- 
stitute the  authority  of  France,  to  plant  in  the  peninsula  a  wholly 
new  and  revolutionizing  set  of  political  and  legal  institutions,  and, 
quite  unintentionally,  to  fan  to  a  blaze  a  patriotic  zeal  which 
for  generations  had  smoldered  almost  unobserved.  The  begin- 
ning of  these  transformations  came  as  a  direct  result  of  the  Napo- 
leonic incursion  of  1796.  One  by  one,  upon  the  advance  of  the 
victorious  French,  were  detached  the  princes  who,  under  English 
and  Austrian  tutelage,  had  been  allied  against  France.  The 
king  of  Naples  sought  an  armistice ;  the  Pope  made  peace ; 
at  Arcole  and  Rivoli  the  Austrian  power  was  shattered.  With 
the  approval  of  the  conqueror,  a  Cispadane  Republic,  including 
Modena,  Reggio,  Ferrara,  and  Bologna,  was  proclaimed,  on 
October  16,  1796;  and  five  months  later  a  constitution  was 
promulgated,  which,  having  been  adopted  by  representatives  of 
the  four  districts,  had  also  been  ratified  by  a  vote  of  the  people. 
This  constitution  —  the  first  in  the  history  of  modern  Italy  — 
was  modeled  upon  the  French  instrument  of  1795.  It  provided 
for  a  legislative  council  of  sixty  members,  with  exclusive  power 
to  propose  measures,  another  of  thirty  members,  with  power 
to  approve  or  reject  measures,  and  an  executive  directory  of  three, 
elected  by  the  legislative  bodies. 

Results  in  Lombardy  were  similar.     Early  in  1797  four  com- 
missions, appointed  by  Napoleon,  worked  out  a  constitution 
which  likewise  reproduced  all  of  the  essential  features  of  the 
French  model ;   and  in  mid-summer  the  Transpadane  Republic 
was  inaugurated,  with  brilliant  ceremony,  at  Milan.     Provision 
was  made  for  a  directory  and  for  two  legislative  councils  con- 
sisting of  one  hundred  sixty  and  eighty  members  respectively ; 
and  the  first  directors,  representatives,  and  other  officials  were 
named  by  Napoleon.     Almost  immediately,  however,  and  at  the 
on  of  the  Cispadanes,  the  two  republics  were  united ; 
he  combined  commonwealth  was  given  the  name  Cisal- 
mblic.1     Alreacfy  the  helpless  Venetian  republic  had  been 

isalpine  constitution  was  amended  September  i,  1798,  when  the  French 
administrative  divisions  was  introduced. 


5o6  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

crushed;  and  when,  in  the  treaty  of  Campo  Formio  (October 
17.  [797)  Austria  was  brought  to  the  point  of  recognizing  the  uew 
Cisalpine  state,  she  was  compensated  in  a  measure  by  being 

awarded  the  major  part  of  the  Venetian  territories,  including  the 
city  of  Venice.3 
In  the  meantime,  too,  Genoa   had   been   reorganized.     The 

ruling  oligarchy,  driven  from  power  by  Napoleon,  gave  place  to 
a  moderately  democratic  government,  legislative  functions  being 
intrusted  to  two  popularly  elected  chambers,  while  the  execu- 
tive power  was  vested  in  a  doge  and  twelve  senators;  and  the 
new  commonwealth,  French  in  everything  but  name,  became 
known  as  the  Ligurian  Republic.  The  Ligurian  constitution  was 
ratified  by  the  people  December  2  1707.  During  the  ensuing 
winter  the  French  Directory,  now  openly  hostile  to  the  papacy, 
busily  encouraged  the  democratic  party  at  Rome  to  overthrow 
the  temporal  power  and  to  set  up  an  independent  republic;  and 
in  February,  with  the  aid  of  French  arms,  the  democrats  secured 
the  upper  hand,  assembled  in  the  Forum,  declared  for  the  res- 
toration of  the  old  Roman  republic,  and  elected  as  head  of  the 
new  state  a  body  of  seven  consuls.  The  aged  pontiff,  Pius  VI, 
was  maltreated  and  eventually  transported  to  France.  For  this 
new  Tiberine,  or  Roman,  Republic  was  promulgated  a  constitu- 
tion providing  for  the  customary  two  councils  —  a  Senate  of 
thirty  members  and  a  Tribunate  of  sixty  —  and  a  directory,  now 
christened  a  consulate,  consisting  of  five  consuls  elected  by  the 
councils.  In  less  than  another  year  (January  23,  1709),  follow- 
ing an  armed  clash  between  the  French  and  the  Neapolitan 
sovereign,  Ferdinand  IV,  Naples  was  taken  and  the  southern 
kingdom  was  converted  into  the  Parthcnopscan  Republic.  Here, 
too,  a  constitution  was  promulgated,  providing  for  a  direc- 
tory of  five  members,  a  Senate  of  fifty,  with  exclusive  right 
of  legislative  initiative,  and  aJ  Tribunate  of  one  hundred 
twenty.'2 

The  Monarchical  Reaction.  —  While  Napoleon  was  occupied 
with  the  Egyptian  expedition  the  armies  of  France  suffered 
repeated  reverses  in  Italy,  and  by  the  end  of  1799  everything 
seemed  about  to  be  lost.  In  the  campaign  which  culminated  at 
Marengo,  however,  the  conqueror  not  only  clinched  his  newly 
won  position  in  France  but  brought  Italy  once  more  to  his  feet. 
Under  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  Luneville  (February  9,  1801) 

1  E.  Bortnal  de  Ganges,  i.a  chute  d'une  republique  (Paris,  1885). 

2  For  an  interesting  account  of  the  workings  of  republican  idealism  in  the  Neapol- 
itan republic  see  Fisher,  Republican  Tradition  in  Europe,  150-157. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  DEVELOPMENT   IN  ITALY      507 

Austria  recognized  the  reconstituted  Cisalpine  and  Ligurian 
republics,  Modena  and  Tuscany  reverted  to  French  control, 
and  French  ascendancy  elsewhere  was  securely  established ;  and 
in  1802  Piedmont  was  organized  in  six  departments  and  incor- 
porated in  the  French  Republic.  During  the  winter  of  1802-03 
the  constitutions  of  the  Cisalpine  and  Ligurian  republics  were 
remodeled  in  the  interest  of  that  same  autocratic  domination 
which  was  now  fast  ripening  in  France.  In  each  republic  were 
established,  at  first,  three  bodies  —  an  executive  consulta,1  a 
legislature  of  150  members,  and  a  court  —  which  were  chosen  by 
three  electoral  colleges  comprising  (1)  the  possidentis  or  landed 
proprietors,  (2)  the  dotti,  or  scholars  and  ecclesiastics,  and  (3) 
the  commercianti,  or  merchants  and  traders ;  but  the  legislature 
could  be  completely  overridden  by  the  consulta,  and  the  consulta 
was  little  more  than  a  tool  of  Napoleon.2  Within  a  year  the  new 
constitutions  proved  more  democratic  than  was  desired,  and  in 
each  case  the  legislative  body  was  replaced  by  a  senate  of  thirty 
members  presided  over  by  a  doge. 

The  plain  stipulation  of  the  treaty  of  Luneville  that  the  Italian 
republics  should  remain  independent  of  France  was  practically 
disregarded.  Politically  and  commercially,  they  were  actual 
dependencies ;  and,  following  the  proclamation  of  the  French 
empire  (May  18,  1804),  the  fact  was  openly  admitted.  To  Napo- 
leon, furthennore,  it  seemed  incongruous  that  an  emperor  of  the 
French  should  be  a  patron  of  republics.  He  had  no  deep  concern 
for  Italian  liberty.  Besides,  he  well  knew  how  ill-equipped  the 
Italians  were  for  self-government ;  upon  one  occasion  he  observed 
to  the  Directory  that  there  was  less  material  for  the  building  of 
republics  in  Italy  than  there  was  in  France.  Gradually,  therefore, 
a  plan  was  formed  for  the  conversion  of  the  Italian  Republic 
into  a  tributary  kingdom.  Napoleon's  first  idea  was  that  his 
eldest  brother,  Joseph,  should  occupy  the  throne  of  this  king- 
dom. But  Joseph,  not  caring  to  imperil  his  chances  of  succes- 
sion in  France,  demurred,  as  did  also  his  younger  brother,  Louis. 
The  upshot  was  that,  under  a  constitutional  statute  of  March  17, 
1805,  the  Emperor  caused  himself  to  be  called  to  the  throne  of 
Italy ;  and  a  few  weeks  later,  in  the  cathedral  at  Milan,  he  placed 
upon  his  own  head  the  iron  crown  of  the  old  Lombard  kings. 
The  sovereign's  step-son,  Eugene  Beauharnais,  was  appointed 
regent.  In  June  of  the  same  year,  in  response  to  a  petition  which 
Napoleon  himself  instigated,  the  Ligurian  Republic  was  pro- 

1  An  advisory  council  of  state,  consisting  of  eight  members. 

2  The  Cisalpine  Republic  was  now  renamed  the  Italian  Republic. 


5o8  GOVERNMENTS  01     EUROPE 

claimed  an  integral  part  of  the  Freni  h  Empire;  and  the  annexa 
tion  of  Parma  and  Piacenza  promptly  followed. 

Against  the  coalition  of  Greal  Britain,  Russia,  Austria,  and 
Naples,  which  was  directly  prompted  by  the  Ligurian  annexa- 
tion. Napoleon  was  completely  successful.  In  the  treaty  of 
Pressburg,  December  26,  r.806,  Austria  ceded  to  the  Italian  king- 
dom her  portion  of  Venetia,  together  with  the  provinces  of  Istria 
and  Dalmatia.  Following  a  vigorous  campaign  conducted  by 
Joseph  Bonaparte,  the  restored  Pour^i  family  was  again  driven 
from  Naples,  whereupon  Joseph  allowed  himself  to  be  established 
there  as  king.  In  1808  he  was  succeeded  by  Napoleon's  am- 
bitious marshal  and  brother-in-law  Murat.  From  Bayonne, 
Joseph  issued  a  constitution  for  his  former  subjects,  providing 
for  a  council  of  state  of  from  twenty-six  to  thirty-six  members 
and  a  single  legislative  chamber  of  one  hundred  members,  of 
whom  eighty  were  to  be  named  by  the  king  and  twenty  were  to 
be  chosen  by  electoral  colleges.  Not  until  181 5,  however,  and 
then  for  only  a  few  weeks,  was  this  instrument  actually  in  opera- 
tion. Finally,  the  papal  territories  were  brought  under  complete 
control.  Following  prolonged  friction  with  the  Pope,  Napoleon 
first  of  all  (April  2,  1808)  annexed  to  the  kingdom  of  Italy  the 
papal  march  of  Ancona  and  the  duchies  of  Urbino,  Macerata, 
and  Camerina,  and  then  (by  decrees  of  May  17,  1809,  and  Feb- 
ruary 17,  1810)  added  to  the  French  empire  Rome  itself  and  the 
Patrimonium  Petri. 

Thus  was  the  entire  peninsula,  for  the  first  time  since  the  age 
of  Justinian,  brought  under  what  was  in  fact,  if  not  in  name  a 
single  governing  power.  To  the  whole  was  extended  the  Code 
Xnpolcoii  and  the  new  French  administrative  system  ;  and  public 
works,  measures  for  elementary  and  higher  education,  and  social 
reforms  were  undertaken,  such  as  in  France  itself  proved  the  mosl 
enduring  and  salutary  features  of  the  Napoleonic  regime.  There 
was  not  time  for  the  new  order  to  strike  root  deeply;  and  when  the 
wave  of  French  conquest  receded,  a  reaction  set  in  which  over- 
whelmed many  of  the  new  institutions  a \m\  enterprises.  None  the 
less,  the  Code  Napoleon  lies  at  the  basis  of  Italian  law  to-day; 
the  Italian  system  of  local  government  and  administration  is 
almost  a  duplicate  of  the  French  ;l  the  French  impress  is  in  evi- 
dence throughout  the  entire  political  system,  although  dating, 
of  course,  by  no  means  exclusively  from  the  Napoleonic  domina- 
tion. Most  important  of  all,  the  Italians  had  been  given  a  new 
political  vision.     "  When,"  says  a  leading  English  student  of 

1  See  p.  537- 


CONSTITUTIONAL  DEVELOPMENT   IN   ITALY      509 

free  institutions,  "  a  political  settlement  has  become  hardened  by- 
prescription,  even  the  most  transient  disturbance  of  it  is  a  fact 
of  moment.  It  dislocates  the  traditional  mode  of  thinking  and 
breaks  the  hard  crust  of  usage.  Even  if  the  old  order  be  restored, 
the  restoration  is  never  quite  exact.  It  cannot  reproduce  a  state 
of  feeling  of  which  one  of  the  essential  conditions  was  the  bare 
fact  of  unbroken  continuity.  The  old  furniture  may  be  re- 
placed, but  it  is  viewed  not  as  a  fixture  but  as  a  movable ; 
and  questions  arise  as  to  whether  it  looks  well  in  its  former 
position.  So  it  was  witrwme  short-lived  Italian  republics.  .  .  . 
Ephemeral  as  they  were,  and  the  creatures  of  military  coercion 
and  financial  greed,  they  broke  an  old  tradition  and  started  a 
new  one." * 

Italy  in  18 15.  —  If  the  rise  of  French  power  in  Italy  was 
brilliant,  the  collapse  —  following  hard  upon  Napoleon's  Russian 
campaign  and  the  defeat  at  Leipzig  —  was  swift  and  complete. 
The  final  surrender  was  made  April  16,  18 14,  by  the  viceroy 
Beauharnais ;  whereupon  the  Austrians  resumed  possession  in 
the  north,  the  Bourbons  in  the  south,  and  the  whole  problem  of 
permanent  adjustment  fell  to  the  congress  of  the  powers  at  Vi- 
enna. The  "  Final  Act "  of  this  gathering,  dated  June  9,1815,  left 
the  country  in  such  a  condition  that  Metternich  could  truth- 
fully refer  to  the  name  Italy  as  being  merely  "  a  geographical 
expression."  The  political  map  was  redrawn  so  as  to  be  prac- 
tically, although  not  in  every  detail,  what  it  was  in  1796.  Ten 
states  reappeared,  as  follows  :  the  kingdom  of  Sardinia,  Lombardo- 
Venetia,  Parma,  Modena,  Lucca,  Tuscany,  Monaco,  San  Marino, 
the  kingdom  of  Naples,  and  the  States  of  the  Church.  To  the 
kingdom  of  Sardinia,  reconstituted  under  Victor  Emmanuel  I, 
France  retroceded  Nice  and  Savoy ;  and  to  it  was  added  also  the 
former  republic  of  Genoa.  Lombardo-Venetia,  comprising  the 
duchy  of  Milan  and  all  of  the  continental  possessions  of  the  former 
Venetian  republic,  including  Istria  and  Dalmatia,  was  given 
to  Austria.2  Tuscany  was  restored  to  the  grand-duke  Ferdinand 
III  of  Habsburg-Lorraine ;  the  duchy  of  Modena  went  to  Francis 

1  Fisher,  op.  cit.,  140-150.  For  brief  accounts  of  the  Napoleonic  regime  in  Italy 
see  Cambridge  Modem  History,  IX,  Chap,  xiv,  and  B.  Kins,  History  of  Italian 
Unity  (London,  1899),  Chap.  i.  Special  treatises  include  P.  GafTarel,  Bonaparte 
et  les  republiqucs  italiennes,  1796-180Q  (Paris,  1895) ;  A.  Dufourcq,  Le  regime  jacobin 
en  Italie,  Ijg6-i7gg  (Paris,  1900) ;  F.  Lemmi,  Le  origini  del  risorgimento  italiano 
(Milan,  1906);  G.  Savini,  /  primi  esperimenti  costituzionali  in  Italia,  ijqj-iSi^ 
(Turin,  191 1) ;  and  R.  M.  Johnston,  The  Napoleonic  Empire  in  Southern  Italy, 
2  vols.  (London,  1909). 

2  A  decree  of  April  24,  1815,  erected  these  territories  into  a  kingdom  under  Aus- 
trian control,  although  with  a  separate  administration. 


5io  GOVERNMENTS   01     EUROPE 

I\  .  son  of  the  archduke  Ferdinand  of  Austria  ;  Parma  and  Pia- 
cenza  were  assigned  to  Maria  Louisa,  daughter  of  the  Austrian 
emperor,  and  wife  of  Napoleon  ;  the  duchy  of  Lucca  fell  to  Maria 
Louisa  of  Bourbon-Parma.  In  the  south,  Ferdinand  IV  of  Naples, 
restored  to  all  of  his  former  possessions,  was  recognized  under  the 
new  title  of  Ferdinand  I.  Finally,  Pope  Pius  VII  recovered  the 
whole  of  his  temporal  dominion. 

Two  facts  about  this  arrangement  are  obvious.  The  first  is 
that  not  even  a  semblance  of  national  unity  remained.  The  sec- 
ond is  that  Austria  was  now  almost,  if  n<>i  quite,  as  preponderant 
as  France  had  been  in  the  previous  decade.  Lombardo-Venetia 
was  Austrian  territory ;  Tuscany,  Modena,  and  Parma  were 
ruled  by  Austrian  princes;  Ferdinand  of  Naples  was  an  Austrian 
ally,  and  he  had  pledged  himself  not  to  introduce  in  his  domain 
principles  of  government  incompatible  with  those  employed  by 
the  Austrians  in  the  north ;  even  Victor  Emmanuel  of  Sar- 
dinia—  the  only  important  native  sovereign,  aside  from  the 
Pope,  in  the  peninsula  —  was  pledged  to  a  perpetual  Austrian 
alliance.1 

"  Italy."  wrote  Napoleon  some  time  after  his  banishment  to 
St.  Helena,  "  isolated  between  her  natural  limits,  is  destined  to 
form  a  great  and  powerful  nation.  Italy  is  one  nation  ;  unity  of 
language,  customs,  and  literature,  must,  within  a  period  more  or 
less  distant,  unite  her  inhabitants  under  one  sole  government. 
And,  without  the  slightest  doubt,  Rome  will  be  chosen  by  the 
Italians  as  their  capital."2  When  this  prophecy  was  written  the 
unification  of  Italy  appeared  the  most  improbable  of  events.  It 
was,  none  the  less,  impending ;  and  Napoleon  himself  made  large 
contribution  to  it.  In  the  words  of  a  recent  writer,  "  the  brutal- 
ities of  Austria's  white  coats  in  the  north,  the  unintelligent  re- 
pression then  characteristic  of  the  house  of  Savoy,  the  petty 
spite  of  the  duke  of  Modena,  the  medieval  obscurantism  of  pope 
and  cardinals  in  the  middle  of  the  peninsula,  and  the  clownish 
excesses  of  Ferdinand  in  the  south,  could  not  blot  out  from  the 
minds  of  the  Italians  the  recollection  of  the  benefits  derived  from 
the  just  laws,  vigorous  administration,  and  enlightened  aims  of 
the  great  emperor.  The  hard  but  salutary  training  which  they 
had  undergone  at  his  hands  had  taught  them  that  they  were  the 
equals  of  the  northern  races  both  in  the  council  chamber  and  on 
the  field  of  battle.  It  had  further  revealed  to  them  that  truth, 
which  once  grasped  can  never  be  forgotten,  that,  despite  differ- 

»W.  R.  Thayer,  Dawn  of  Italian  Independence  (Boston,  1893),  I,  116-178. 
-  M.  Cesaresco,  The  Liberation  of  Italy  (London,  1895),  3. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  DEVELOPMENT  IN   ITALY      511 

ences  of  climate,  character,  and  speech,  they  were  in  all  essentials 
a  nation."1  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  Napoleon  sowed  the 
seed  of  Italian  unity. 

Mid-Century  Revolutions  and  Constitutionalism.  —  From  181 5 
to  1848  Austrian  influence,  shaped  mainly  by  Metternich,  was 
everywhere  reactionary  ;  and  during  this  prolonged  period  there 
was  not  a  government  in  Italy  that  was  not  of  the  absolute 
type.  No  one  of  the  states  had  a  constitution,  a  parliament,  or 
any  sort  of  popular  political  procedure.  In  1820  Ferdinand  of 
Naples  was  compelled  by  a  revolution  to  promulgate  a  constitu- 
tion identical  with  that  forced  in  the  same  year  upon  Ferdinand 
VII  of  Spain.  This  ready-made  instrument  provided  for  a  popu- 
larly elected  parliament  of  one  chamber,  upon  which  were  con- 
ferred large  powers ;  a  council  of  state  composed  of  twenty-four 
members  to  advise  the  king ;  an  independent  judiciary ;  and  a 
parliamentary  deputation  of  seven  members  elected  by  the  parlia- 
ment, whose  duty  it  was,  in  the  event  of  the  dissolution  of  parlia- 
ment, to  see  that  the  terms  of  the  constitution  were  properly 
complied  with.  In  1821  revolution  broke  out  also  in  Piedmont; 
and  after  the  mild-tempered  king,  Victor  Emmanuel,  abdicated 
in  favor  of  his  brother,  Charles  Albert,  a  temporary  regent,  the 
Prince  of  Carignano,  under  pressure,  conceded  to  the  people  a 
duplicate  of  the  Spanish  fundamental  law.  In  both  Naples 
and  Piedmont,  however,  the  liberal  movement  entirely  failed. 
The  reformers  lacked  unity  of  purpose,  and  when,  under  authori- 
zation of  the  continental  powers,  Austria  intervened,  every  gleam 
of  constitutionalism  was  promptly  snuffed  out.  Similarly,  in 
1831-32,  there  was  widespread  insurrection  in  Modena,  Parma, 
and  the  Papal  States,  and  with  rather  more  evidence  of  a  growing 
national  spirit ;  but  again,  with  Austrian  assistance,  the  outbreaks 
were  suppressed.2 

The  turning  point  came  with  the  great  year  of  revolution, 
1848.  During  the  intervening  period  the  ground  was  systemat- 
ically prepared  by  propaganda,  in  which  Mazzini's  "  Young 
Italy  "  led,  for  the  risorgimento  upon  which  the  patriots  and  the 
prophets  had  set  their  hearts.  In  1846  a  liberal-minded  pope, 
Pius  IX,  instituted  a  series  of  reforms ;  and  the  example  was  forth- 
with followed  by  the  princes  of  Piedmont  (Sardinia)  and  Tus- 
cany.    In  January,  1848,  revolution  broke  out  afresh  in  Naples, 

XJ.  Holland  Rose,  in  Encyclopedia  Britannica  (nth  ed.),  XV,  48.  See  also 
Fisher,  Republican  Tradition  in  Europe,  158-159. 

2  Cambridge  Modem  History,  X,  Chap,  iv ;  Johnston,  Napoleonic  Empire  in  South- 
ern Italy,  II,  Chap,  iv;  Thayer,  Dawn  of  Italian  Independence,  I,  215-278. 


512  GOVERNMENTS  01    EUROPE 

and  within  a  month  Ferdinand  II  was  obliged,  like  his  Father  in 
[820,  to  yield  to  public  demand  for  a  constitution.  The  new  in 
strument,  promulgated  February  1  >.  provided  for  a  legislative 
body  consisting  of  a  chamber  of  peers,  appointed  for  life  by  the 
king,  and  a  chamber  of  deputies,  elected  by  the  people.  Five 
days  later  the  sovereign  of  Tuscany,  Leopold  II.  granted  to  his 
subjects  a  constitution  of  similar  character,  making  provision 
for  a  complete  representative  system. 

Meanwhile  the  municipality  of  Turin,  voicing  a  demand  sup- 
ported by  many  nobles  and  high  officials  of  state,  petitioned 
Charles  Albert  of  Piedmont  to  grant  a  ((institution.  The  matter 
was  given  serious  thought,  and  on  February  7  the  sovereign  an- 
nounced in  a  long  discourse  to  a  gathering  of  ministers  and  magis- 
trates his  conviction  that  the  safety  of  the  kingdom,  the  mon- 
archy, and  religion  demanded  a  more  popular  form  of  government. 
A  public  proclamation  was  issued  the  following  day,  and  a  com- 
mission was  appointed  to  draft  a  constitution.  The  French 
charter  of  18.^0  was  taken  as  a  model,  and  the  task  was  soon  com- 
pleted. On  March  4  the  king  was  able  to  promulgate  an  instru- 
ment —  the  Statute  fondamentale  del  Regno  —  which,  with  no 
changes  of  text  whatsoever,  has  survived  to  the  present  day  as 
the  constitution  of  the  united  Italian  kingdom.1  Already  news 
of  the  overthrow  of  Louis  Philippe,  of  the  uprising  in  Germany, 
and  of  the  fall  of  Metternich  had  plunged  the  entire  country  in 
insurrection.  Under  popular  pressure  the  Pope  and  the  king 
of  Naples  sent  troops  to  aid  the  northern  states  in  the  liberation 
of  the  peninsula  from  Austrian  despotism,  and  for  a  time,  under 
the  leadership  of  the  Piedmontese  monarch,  Charles  Albert,  all 
Italy  seemed  united  in  a  broadly  nationalistic  movement.  On 
July  10  a  new  and  extremely  liberal  constitution  was  adopted  by 
a  constituent  assembly  in  Naples;  and  on  February  9,  1849, 
following  a  clash  between  the  Pope  and  the  recently  established 
Roman  parliament,  the  temporal  power  of  the  papacy  was  once 
more  swept  away  and  Rome,  under  an  appropriate  constitution, 
was  proclaimed  a  republic.2 

The  reaction,  however,  was  swift  and  apparently  little  short  of 
complete.  At  the  earliest  possible  moment  the  king  of  Naples 
withdrew  from  the  war,  revoked  the  constitution  which  he  had 
granted,  and  put  the  forces  of  liberalism  to  rout.     With  the  assist- 

1  The  nature  of  the  governmental  system  provided  in  this  instrument  will  he 
explained  at  length  in  the  succeeding  chapter. 

-  (1.  Garavani,  La  costituzione  delta  repubbUca  rt»>i<nui  net  1798  e  nel  iS.j<j  (Fermo, 

IQIO). 


CONSTITUTIONAL  DEVELOPMENT   IN  ITALY      513 

ance  of  France,  Austria,  and  Naples,  the  Pope  extinguished  the 
Roman  republic  and  re-established  the  temporal  power  in  all 
its  vigor.  Austrian  arms  crushed  one  after  another  of  the  in- 
surrectionary states  in  the  north  and  center,  and  Austrian  in- 
fluence in  that  quarter  rose  to  its  former  degree  of  ascendancy. 
Constitutionalism  gave  place  to  absolutism,  and  the  liberals, 
disheartened  and  disunited,  were  driven  to  cover.  Only  in 
Piedmont,  whose  sovereign,  after  the  bitter  defeat  at  Novara, 
abdicated  iPx  favor  of  his  son,  Victor  Emmanuel  II  (March  23, 
1849),  remained  any  vestiges  of  political  independence  or  civil 
liberty.1 

National  Unity  Achieved.  —  To  all  inducements  to  abrogate 
the  constitution  which  his  father  had  granted  Victor  Emmanuel 
remained  deaf,  and  the  logic  of  the  situation  began  to  point  un- 
mistakably to  Piedmont  as  the  hope  of  the  patriotic  cause.  After 
1848  the  building  of  the  Italian  nation  becomes,  indeed,  essen- 
tially the  story  of  Piedmontese  organization,  leadership,  conquest, 
and  expansion.  Victor  Emmanuel,  honest  and  liberal-minded, 
was  not  a  statesman  of  the  first  rank,  but  he  had  the  wisdom  to 
discern  and  to  rely  upon  the  statesmanship  of  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  ministers  in  the  history  of  modern  Europe,  Count 
Cavour.  When,  in  1850,  Cavour  entered  the  Piedmontese  min- 
istry he  was  already  known  as  an  ardent  advocate  of  both 
constitutionalism  and  national  unification;  and  after,  in  1852, 
he  assumed  the  premiership  he  was  allowed  practically  a  free 
hand  in  prosecuting  policies  designed  to  contribute  to  a  realiza- 
tion of  these  ends.  The  original  purpose  of  the  king  and  of  his 
minister  was  to  bring  about  the  exclusion  of  Austrian  influence 
from  the  peninsula  and  to  organize  the  various  states  into  a  con- 
federacy under  the  nominal  headship  of  the  Pope,  but  under  the 
real  leadership  of  the  sovereign  of  Piedmont.  Ultimately  the 
object  became  nothing  less  than  unification  of  the  entire  country 
under  the  control  of  a  centralized,  national,  temporal  govern- 
ment. 

In  1855  Cavour  signed  an  offensive  and  defensive  alliance  with 
France,  and  in  1859  his  country,  with  the  connivance  of  its  ally, 
went  to  war  with  Austria.  According  to  an  understanding  ar- 
rived at  by  Cavour  and  the  Emperor  Napoleon  III  at  Plombieres 
(June  20,   1858),  Austria  was  to  be  expelled  absolutely  from 

1  Full  accounts  of  the  revolution  of  1848  in  Italy  are  given  in  King,  History  of 
Italian  Unity,  I,  Chaps,  ix-xix,  and  Thayer,  Dawn  of  Italian  Independence,  II,  Bks. 
iv-v.  A  good  brief  survey  is  Cambridge  Modern  History,  XI,  Chap,  iv  (bibliog- 
raphy, pp.  908-913).  A  suggestive  sketch  is  Fisher,  Republican  Tradition  in  Europe, 
Chap.  ix. 


514  GOVERNMENTS  01    EUROPE 

Italian  soil ;  Lombardo-Venetia,  the  smaller  duchies  of  the  north, 
the  papal  Legations,  and  perhaps  the  Marches,  were  to  be  an- 
nexed to  Piedmont,  the  whole  to  comprise  a  kingdom  of  upper 
Italy;  Umbria  and  Tuscany  were  to  be  erected  into  a  kingdom 
of  centra]  Italy;  the  Pope  was  to  retain  Rome,  and  Ferdinand 
Maples;  and  the  four  states  thus  constituted  wire  to  be  formed 
into  an  Italian  confederation.  In  the  contesl  that  ensued  the 
Austrians  wen'  defeated.  Their  only  immediate  loss,  however, 
was  the  ancient  duchy  of  Lombardy,  which,  under  the  terms  of 
the  treaty  of  Zurich,  was  annexed  to  Piedmont.1  Years  before 
(June  8,  1848).  a  Lombard  plebiscite  upon  the  question  of  such 
annexation  had  brought  out  an  affirmative  vote  of  561,002  to 
681. 

The  gain  arising  from  the  annexation  of  Lombardy  was  in  a 
measure  offset  by  the  cession  of  Savoy  and  Nice  to  France,  in 
conformity  with  an  agreement  entered  into  before  the  war. 
In  point  of  fact,  none  the  less,  the  benefits  accruing  to  Piedmont 
from  the  Austrian  war  were  enormous.  Aroused  by  the  vigor 
and  promise  of  Piedmontese  leadership,  a  large  portion  of  cen- 
tral Italy  broke  into  revolt  and  declared  for  union  with  Victor 
Emmanuel's  dominion.  In  September,  1859,  four  assemblies, 
representing  the  grand-duchy  of  Tuscany,  the  duchies  of  Modena 
and  Parma,  and  the  Romagna  (the  northern  portion  of  the  Papal 
States),  met  at  Florence,  Modena,  Parma,  and  Bologna,  respec- 
tively, and  voted  unanimously  for  incorporation  with  Piedmont. 
In  the  following  March  the  alternatives  of  annexation  and  inde- 
pendence were  submitted  to  the  inhabitants  of  each  district. 
All  adult  males  were  allowed  to  vote.  The  result  was  an  aggre- 
gate of  792,577  affirmative  votes  in  a  total  of  807,502  ;  and  under 
authority  conferred  by  the  Piedmontese  parliament,  the  king 
formally  proclaimed  the  annexations.  Deputies  were  forth- 
with elected  to  represent  the  provinces,  and  on  April  2,  i860,  the 
enlarged  parliament  was  convened  at  Turin.  Within  the  span-  of 
a  year  the  population  of  the  kingdom  had  been  more  than  doubled. 
It  was  now  eleven  millions,  or  approximately  half  the  population 
of  the  entire  peninsula. 

Meanwhile  the  Piedmontese  program  had  been  broadened  to 
involve  unification  of  the  entire  country.  With  amazing  rapidity 
the  task  was  carried  toward  completion.  Aided  by  Garibaldi 
and  his  famous  "Thousand."  the  people  of  Sicily  and  Naples 
expelled  their  Bourbon  sovereign  ;  and  at  a  plebiscite  of  October 
21,  i860,  they  declared,  by  a  vote  of  r  ,734,117  to  10,979,  for  an- 
1  King,  History  of  Italian  Unity,  II,  Chap,  xxvii. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  DEVELOPMENT   IN  ITALY      515 

nexation  to  Piedmont.  At  the  same  time  Umbria  and  the 
Marches  were  occupied  by  the  Piedmontese  forces,  leaving  to  the 
Pope  nothing  save  the  Eternal  City  and  a  bit  of  territory  imme- 
diately surrounding  it.  By  votes  of  97,040  to  380  and  133,077 
to  1 21 2,  respectively,  these  districts  declared  for  annexation; 
and  on  December  17,  i860,  a  royal  decree  announced  their  final 
incorporation,  together  with  that  of  Naples.  On  January  27, 
1861,  general  elections  were  held,  and  three  weeks  later  the  new 
and  enlarged  parliament  met  at  Turin.  Its  most  important  act 
was  to  proclaim  the  long  desired  and  hard-won  United  Kingdom 
of  Italy.  Over  the  breadth  of  the  new  territories  was  extended 
the  liberal  Statute  granted  to  Piedmont  by  Charles  Albert 
thirteen  years  earlier ;  and  Victor  Emmanuel  II  was  acknowl- 
edged "  by  the  grace  of  God  and  the  will  of  the  nation,  King  of 
Italy."  l 

It  remained  only  to  consolidate  the  /kingdom  and  to  annex 
the  two  important  Italian  districts,  Venetia  and  Rome,  which 
were  yet  in  foreign  hands.  Venetia  was  acquired  as  a  direct  re- 
sult of  Italy's  alliance  with  Prussia  against  Austria  in  1866.  A 
plebiscite  following  the  enforced  Austrian  cession  yielded  a  vote 
of  647,246  to  47  for  annexation.  The  union  was  sanctioned  by  a 
decree  of  November  4,  1866,  and  ratified  by  a  law  of  July  18, 
1867.  The  acquisition  of  Rome  was  made  possible  four  years 
later  by  the  Franco-German  war.  The  conviction  had  been 
ripening  that  eventually  Rome  must  be  made  the  kingdom's 
capital ;  and  when,  in  1870,  the  garrison  which  France  had  main- 
tained in  Italy  for  the  protection  of  the  papacy  since  1849  was 
withdrawn,  the  opportunity  was  seized  to  follow  up  fruitless 
diplomacy  with  military  demonstrations.  On  September  20 
the  troops  of  General  Cadorna  forced  entrance  into  the  city, 
and  the  Pope  was  compelled  to  capitulate.  On  October  2  the 
people  declared,  by  a  vote  of  133,681  to  1507,  for  annexation; 
on  October  9  the  annexation  was  proclaimed ;  and  December 
31  it  was  ratified  by  act  of  Parliament.  The  guarantees  of  in- 
dependence to  be  extended  to  the  papacy  were  left  to  be  deter- 
mined in  a  subsequent  statute.2  Under  act  of  February  3,  1871, 
the  capital  of  the  kingdom  —  already,  in  1865,  transferred  from 
Turin  to  Florence  —  was  removed  to  Rome  ;  and  in  the  Eternal 
City,  in  the  ensuing  November,  was  convened  the  eleventh 
parliament  since  the  revolution  of  1848,  the  fourth  since  the 

1  King,  History  of  Italian  Unity,  II,  Chaps,  xxix-xxxii. 

2  The  resulting  measure,  the  Law  of  Papal  Guarantees,  was  enacted  May  13, 
1871.     See  p.  540. 


516  GO\  ERNMEN  I  -  "I     El  ROPE 

proclamation  of  the  kingdom  of  Italy,  the  first  since  the  comple- 
tion of  Italian  unity.' 

The  Constitution.  The  written  constitution  of  the  kingdom 
of  Italy  to-day  is  the  Statute  fondamentale  del  Regno  granted  Man  b 
4.  1S48,  by  Charles  Alberl  to  his  Piedmontese  subjects.  In 
origin  it  therefore  belongs  with  the  Large  group  of  mid-century 
constitutions  which  were  not  framed  by  popular  bodies,  bul  were 
rather  made  and  handed  down  to  the  people  by  the  sovereign. 
Its  promulgation  came,  however,  in  direcl  response  to  popular 
demand,  and  it  was  drawn  on  exceptionally  enlightened  and 
liberal  lines.  Furthermore,  when  the  time  tame  to  annex  to 
Piedmont  the  broad  Italian  lands  to  the  east  and  south,  and  so 
to  build  the  modern  Italian  kingdom,  the  Statute  was  extended 
over  them  only  after  the  populations  had  been  given  an  oppor- 
tunity to  say  whether  they  desired  to  come  under  the  govern- 
ment for  which  the  instrument  provided.  Plebiscites  of  1859  in 
Lombardy,  of  i860  in  Emilia,  Tuscany,  the  Neapolitan  provinces, 
Sicily,  Umbria,  and  the  Marches,  of  1866  inVenetia,  and  of  1870 
in  Rome,  gave  the  constitution  an  essentially  popular  basis. 

Granted  originally  as  a  royal  charter,  the  Statute  contained  no 
provision  for  its  own  amendment.  In  a  sense,  none  was  needed  ; 
for,  in  theory  at  all  events,  the  power  that  granted  it  could  modify 
it,  or  even  withdraw  it  altogether.  Practically,  however,  the 
case  was  different.  Trior  to  1848  the  king  of  Piedmont,  like  all 
Italian  monarch.-,,  was  a  ruler  of  unrestricted  authority.  But  in 
granting  the  Statute  he  relinquished  the  larger  part  of  his  power. 
He  became  a  king  subject  to  the  restrictions  of  a  written  consti- 
tution, a  national  parliament,  and  a  cabinel  system;  the  Statute 
became  a  solemn  contract  between  king  and  people,  voluntarily 
instituted  indeed  by  the  former,  but  accepted  none  the  less  as 

1  For  a  brief  account  of  the  final  stages  in  the  unification  of  Italy  sec  ( 'atnbridge 
Modern  History,  XI.  Chaps,  xiv,  xix.  The  best  presentation  of  the  rutin-  subject 
is  King,  History  of  Italian  Unity,  r.     Other  us<  ful  I""-!  -  an-  W.  J.  Still- 

man,  The  Union  of  Italy,  1815  1895  (Cambridge,  [898  ;  J.  Probyn,  Italy,  1815- 
1878  (London,  [884);  M.  Cesaresco,  The  Liberation  of  Italy  (London,  [895); 
P.  Orsi,  V Italia  moderna  (Milan,  1901);  and  E.  Sorin,  Histoirt  de  I'llalie  depuis 
1815  jusqu'd  la  mart  de  V.  Emm.  (i'ari^,  [910).  Among  biographies  maj  be  men- 
tioned G.  Go6)sxa,Lifeof  Victor  Emmanuel  II I  id  ed.,  London,  t88o);  M.  C<  aresco, 
Cavour  (London,  (898);  D.  Zanichelli,  Cavour  (Florence,  moil;  !■!.  King,  Mazzini 
(London,  1902).  A  very  valuable  biograj  by,  whii  b  is  prai  tically  a  history  of  the 
period  1848-61,  is  W.  R.  Thayer,  Count  (favour,  2  vols.  (Boston,  191 1).  '  The  monu- 
mental Italian  work  is  C.  Tivaroni,  Storia  critica  dd  risorgimento  italiano,  9  vols. 
(Turin,  1888-97).  Tin-  prim  ipal  documentary  collet  1  ion  is  X.  Biani  In'.  Storia  docu- 
mentata  (bill  diplomazia  Europea  in  Italia  doll'  .nmo  1814  oil'  anno  1861,  8  vols. 
(Turin,  1865-72).  of  great  value  an-  L.  Chiala,  Lettere  Bel  Conk  di  Cavour,  7  vols. 
'Turin,  1883-87),  and  I'.  Zanichelli,  Scritti  del  Conk  di  Cavour  (Bologna,  1892). 
For  full  bibliography  see  Cambridge  Modern  History,  XI.  908-913. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  DEVELOPMENT   IN   ITALY      517 

binding  and  irrevocable.  From  this  it  follows,  and  was  at  once 
recognized,  that  the  constitution  is  beyond  the  power  of  the  king 
to  alter.  Rather,  it  was  felt,  even  as  early  as  1848,  that  changes 
ought  to  be  made  only  by  a  constituent  assembly ;  and  before 
the  end  of  that  year  a  law  was  passed  providing  for  such  a  gather- 
ing, although  as  a  result  of  the  disastrous  ending  of  the  Austrian 
war  the  body  never  met. 

No  amending  clause  has  ever  been  added,  and  the  instrument 
stands  to-day  precisely  as  drawn  in  1848.  This  does  not  mean  that 
no  change  of  the  constitutional  text  could  possibly  be  made.  Con- 
stitutions are  made  for  the  people,  not  the  people  for  constitu- 
tions ;  and  there  could  be  no  question  about  the  validity  of  any 
alteration  made,  let  us  say,  by  concurrent  action  of  the  two 
houses  of  Parliament  and  ratified  by  a  popular  vote.  On  more  than 
one  occasion  formal  amendments  have  been  discussed,  although, 
since  none  have  proved  imperative,  none  have  been  adopted. 
The  reason  why  none  have  proved  imperative  is  two-fold.  In 
the  first  place,  the  terms  of  the  instrument,  while  specific  enough 
on  matters  of  a  permanent  nature,  such  as  the  rights  of  citizens, 
are  broad  and  general  on  matters,  such  as  the  composition  of  the 
legislative  houses,  that  require  more  or  less  periodic  readjustment. 
In  the  second  place,  the  written  constitution,  rather  more  than 
is  the  case  in  some  other  countries,  sets  up  merely  the  framework 
of  the  governmental  system ;  the  structure  itself  is  built  largely 
of  custom  and  of  ordinary  legislation.  Italian  jurists  are  now 
substantially  agreed  that,  as  is  so  notably  true  in  England,  cus- 
tom is  a  source  of  constitutional  law  ;  and  by  stages  the  opinion 
has  become  fixed  that,  as  also  in  England,  the  political  system 
can  be  modified  by  legislative  act.  In  earlier  times  an  effort 
was  made  to  uphold  the  distinction  between  fundamental  law  and 
statute.  But  to-day  this  distinction  is  hardly  recognized,  and 
the  parliament  is  practically  as  omnipotent  as  the  English.  The 
view  commonly  taken  at  present  was  stated  by  Crispi  as  early  as 
1 881 :  "  I  do  not  admit  the  intangibility  of  the  Statute.  Statutes 
are  made  to  prevent  governments  from  retrograding,  not  from 
advancing.  Before  us  there  can  be  nothing  but  progress.  .  .  . 
If  we  retain  immutable  the  fundamental  law  of  the  state,  .we 
desire  immobility,  and  should  throw  aside  all  advances  which  have 
thus  far  been  made  by  the  constituted  authorities.  I  understand 
that  in  the  Statute  of  Charles  Albert  nothing  is  said  of  revision, 
and  this  was  prudent.  But  how  should  this  silence  be  inter- 
preted ?  It  should  be  interpreted  in  the  sense  that  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  the  Italian  constitution  that   a    constituent  assembly 


518  GOYKRNMKNTS   OF    EUROPE 

should  be  expressly  convoked,  but  thai  Parliament  in  its  usual 
manner   of  operation    is  always   constituent    and   constituted. 

Whenever  public  opinion  has  matured  a  reform,  it  is  the  duty  of 
Parliament  to  accepl  it.  even  though  the  reform  may  bring  with 
it  the  modification  of  an  article  of  the  Statute."  ' 

In  pursuance  of  this  doctrine,  Parliament  freely  enacts  meas- 
ures which,  with  clear  intent,  add  to,  subtract  from,  or  otherwise 
alter  the  constitutional  system  in  any  particular  whatsoever, 
and  which  become,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  constitutional 
laws.  Examples  that  at  once  suggest  themselves  are  the  law 
of  1865  regulating  the  organization  of  the  judiciary,  the  Law 
of  Papal  Guarantees  of  1871,2  and  the  electoral  laws  of  1882, 
1895,  and  1 01 2.  Care  lias  always  been  taken  that  such  enact- 
ments shall  be  in  accord  with  the  public  will,  and  in  practice  they 
are  not  likely  to  be  brought  to  a  final  vote  until  the  country  has 
been  given  an  opportunity  to  pass  upon  them  at  a  general  elec- 
tion. This  is  obviously  in  accord  with  the  popular  basis  on  which 
the  constitution  may  now  be  said  to  rest.  But  there  is  no  legal 
obstacle  to  prevent  Parliament  from  going  to  any  lengths  in- 
dependently in  the  modification  of  the  governmental  system  ; 
it  might  even  alter  the  text  of  the  Statute  itself. 

Among  written  constitutions,  the  Statu  to  is  notably  brief, 
being  almost  exactly  half  as  long  as  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  It  is  arranged  in  eighty-four  articles  and  deals,  succes- 
sively, with  the  crown,  the  rights  and  duties  of  citizens,  the  Sen- 
ate, the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  the  ministers,  the  judiciary,  and 
matters  of  a  miscellaneous  character.  The  bill  of  rights  contained 
in  Articles  24-32  guarantees  equality  before  the  law,  liberty  of 
person,  inviolability  of  domicile  and  of  property,  freedom  of  the 
press,  exemption  from  non-parliamentary  taxation  and,  with 
qualifications,  freedom  of  assembly.  It  cannot  be  too  strongly 
emphasized,  however,  that,  so  overlaid  is  the  Statuto  with  custom 
and  with  legislative  enactment,  that  one  cannot  adequately 
apprehend  the  working  constitution  of  the  kingdom  to-day,  in 
respect  to  either  principles  or  machinery,  through  an  examina- 
tion of  this  document  alone.  In  the  language  of  an  Italian 
publicist,  "  the  Italian  constitution  no  longer  consists  of  the  Sta- 
tute of  Charles  Albert.  This  forms  simply  the  beginning  of  a 
new  order  of  things.  Many  institutions  have  been  transfonned 
by  laws,  decrees,  usages,  and  neglect,  whence  the  Italian  constitu- 

1  Quoted  by  ('<.  A.  Ruiz,  "Tin-  Amendments  i<>  the  Italian  Constitution,"  in 
Ann.  a/  Amer.  Acad,  of  Polil.  and  Soc.  Set.,  Sept.,  1895,  38. 

2  See  p.  540. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  DEVELOPMENT  IN  ITALY      519 

tion  has  become  cumulative,  consisting  of  an  organism  of  law 
grouped  about  a  primary  kernel  which  is  the  Statuto." 1 

1  Ruiz,  "Amendments  to  the  Italian  Constitution,"  loc.  til.,  57.  The  text  ot 
the  Statuto  is  printed  in  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  II,  346-354.  There  is  a 
French  version  in  F.  R.  Dareste,  Les  constitutions  modcrncs  (Paris,  1883),  I,  550-560. 
There  is  an  English  translation  in  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II,  5-16,  and  another, 
by  S.  M.  Lindsay  and  L.  S.  Rowe,  in  Ann.  of  Amcr.  Acad,  of  Polit.  and  Soc.  Sci., 
Nov.,  1894.  The  most  comprehensive  work  on  Italian  constitutional  law  is  F. 
Racioppi  and  I.  Brunelli,  Commento  alio  statuto  del  regno,  3  vols.  (Turin,  1909). 
Other  valuable  treatises  are  G.  Arangio  Ruiz,  Storia  costituzionale  del  regno  di  Italia, 
1848-1898  (Florence,  1898) ;  E.  Brusa,  Das  Staatsrccht  des  Kdnigreichs  Italien 
(Leipzig,  1892),  in  Marquardsen's  Handbuch;  E.  del  Guerra,  L Amministrazione 
pubblica  in  Italia  (Florence,  1893) ;  and,  for  briefer  treatment,  G.  Mosca,  Appunti 
di  diritto  costituzionale  (Milan,  1908),  and  I.  Tambaro,  II  diritto  costituzionale 
italiano  (Milan,  1909). 


.      CHAPTER   XXIX 
THE   GOVERNMENTAL   SYSTEM 

The  Crown.  —  Constitutional  government  in  Italy  had  its 
origin  in  the  liberal  policies  of  the  kings  of  Piedmont;  and  the 
country's  unification  was  achieved  under  the  astute  leadership 
of  one  of  these  princes,  and  of  his  statesmanlike  minister  Cavour. 
In  Venice,  Genoa,  and  elsewhere,  republicanism  was  a  live 
tradition;  indeed,  the  revolutionists  whose  dreams  and  deeds 
glorify  the  history  of  the  Risorgimento  were  almost  without 
exception  men  of  republican  sentiments.  The  circumstances 
of  its  creation  plainly  decreed,  however,  that  the  new  state 
should  be  a  monarchy ;  and  in  all  subsequent  stages  of  the  coun- 
try's development  the  crown  has  been  a  powerful  and  necessary 
unifying  force.  The  throne  is  hereditary  in  the  House  of  Savoy, 
which  even  before  the  Great  War  was  by  far  the  oldest  reigning 
family  in  Europe.1  Its  descent  is  governed  by  the  Salic  law; 
that  is,  inheritance  is  exclusively  by  or  through  males.  The 
monarch  is  declared  sacred  and  inviolable  in  his  person,  and  he 
enjoys  a  civil  list  of  16,050,000  lire  (.$3,210,000),  of  which,  how- 
ever, the  sum  of  one  million  lire  is  annually  repaid  to  the  state. 
Since  1870  the  royal  residence  has  been  the  Palazzo  del  Quirinale, 
a  palace  which,  on  account  of  its  elevated  and  healthful  situa- 
tion, was  in  earlier  ages  much  frequented  by  the  popes. 

On  paper,  the  powers  of  the  crown  are  very  extensive.  In 
so  far  as  they  are  exercised  by  the  sovereign  in  person,  they  are, 
however,  strictly  limited,  as  is  inevitably  the  case  wherever  mon- 
archy is  tempered  with  parliamentarism.  In  no  continental 
country  have  the  principles  underlying  the  English  cabinet 
system  been  more  deliberately  and  more  unreservedly  accepted. 
In  particular,  the  rule  that  the  ministry  shall  constitute  the 
working  executive,  and  that  it  shall  be  continually  responsible 
to  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  has  been  so  long  and  faithfully 
observed  that  it  is  now  regarded  as  an  unalterable  law  of  the  con- 

1  Count  Humbert  of  Savoy  entered  Middle  European  politics  in  the  eleventh 
century  under  the  patronage  of  the  Emperor  Conrad.  On  the  present  royal  family 
see  Underwood,  United  Italy,  Chap.  x. 

520 


THE   GOVERNMENTAL   SYSTEM  52I 

stitution.  It  is,  therefore,  speaking  strictly,  not  the  king  but 
the  ministry  that  approves  and  promulgates  the  laws,  grants 
pardons  and  commutes  sentences,  (let.  lares  war,  concludes  treaties, 
issues  ordinances,  creates  senators,  and  makes  appointments  to 
the  offices  of  state.1  The  veto  power  nominally  exists,  but,  as 
in  other  cabinet-governed  countries,  it  is  rarely  or  never  used. 
If  a  cabinet  cannot  so  control  Parliament  as  to  prevent  the 
enactment  of  a  measure  to  which  it  objects,  it  resigns  and  a  new 
cabinet  is  made  up  which  is  in  harmony  with  the  legislative 
majority,  and  there  is  no  veto.  According  to  the  constitution, 
treaties  involving  financial  obligations  or  alterations  of  the 
territorial  limits  of  the  state  require  the  sanction  of  the  legisla- 
tive chambers.  In  practice,  international  engagements  of  all 
kinds  are  submitted  for  approval,  except  military  conventions 
and  foreign  alliances. 

It  must  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  the  king  has  no  actual 
influence  or  authority.  His  voice  in  foreign  affairs  carries  much 
weight ;  he  is  personally  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  armed 
forces,  and  not  only  may  take,  but  has  actually  taken,  the  field 
at  the  head  of  the  troops ;  he  appoints  the  premier,  and  usually 
has  large  discretion  in  doing  so ;  he  occasionally  attends  and 
presides  over  cabinet  meetings ;  and  he  retains  such  a  degree  of 
ultimate  control  over  the  ministers  that  he  can  dismiss  them 
(and  on  a  few  occasions  has  done  so)  irrespective  of  their  rela- 
tions with  the  legislative  houses.  It  goes  without  saying  that 
he  enjoys  equally  full  rights  to  "  advise,  admonish,  and  warn  " 
with  other  sovereigns  under  a  cabinet  system ;  and  he  is  not 
in  all  matters  bound  to  act  upon  the  advice  given  him  by  his 
ministers.  His  actual  power,  therefore,  considerably  exceeds 
that  of  the  king  of  England,  being  more  closely  comparable  with 
that  of  the  king  of  Belgium  or  of  the  president  of  France.  No 
one  of  the  three  men  who  have  occupied  the  throne  of  the  United 
Kingdom  has  ever  sought  to  establish  a  personal  government. 
But  as  a  consequence  of  their  attractive  qualities,  their  tact  and 
common  sense,  the  prestige  of  their  house,  and  the  openings  for 
royal  influence  created  by  the  confusion  of  parliamentary  life, 
all  have  played  an  active  and  important  role  in  the  country's 
government.  The  present  king,  Victor  Emmanuel  III,  has  had 
the  respect  of  all  classes.  There  is  a  republican  element,  but 
it  is  not  well  organized  or  strong ;  so  that,  having  weathered  the 
storms  that  in  many  lands  swept  monarchy  from  its  moorings 

1  Arts.  s-8.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II,  5 ;  Dupriez,  Les  ministres,  I, 
292-297 


GOVERNMEN  rS  OF   EUROPE 

during  the  Greal    War,  Italian  royalty  -reins  likely   to  hold   its 
own  in  the  new  era. 

The    Ministry  :  Composition    and    Organization.       Normally, 
the  mini-try  consists  of  the  heads  of  executive  departments,  of 

which    there    were    at    the   close   of    the    Great    War    fourteen,    as 

follows:  foreign  affairs ;  war;  marine;  nuance;  treasury;1  col- 
onies; public  instruction;  public  works;  posts  and  telegraphs; 

justice  and  ecclesiastical  affairs;  commerce  and  labor;  agricul- 
ture; public-  assistance  and  pensions;  and  transport  and  muni- 
tion-.    Occasionally  a   minister   without    portfolio  was  included 
before   the  war;  during  the  conflict   such   members  were  freely 
added.     The  premier  is  named  by  the  king;  and.  as  has  been 
stated,  there  is  likely  to  be  a  considerable  range  of  choice.     There 
is  not  usually  a  recognized  "  leader  of  the  opposition,"  who  (.an 
forthwith  be  named  when  a  ministry  is  to  be  made  up.  with  full 
assurance  of  his  acceptance  and  of  his  ability  to  organize  a  govern- 
ment.    On  the  contrary,  the  situation  is  like  that  which  confronts 
the  president  of  France  when  he  comes  to  perform  a  similar 
duty.2     There  arc  many  parties  and  party  groups;  no  one  of 
them  alone  can  command  a  parliamentary  majority;  every  min- 
istry must  be  a  coalition ;  there  may  be  a  half-dozen,  or  more, 
political  leaders  who  might  conceivably  head  a  new  government ; 
after  one  of  them  is  intrusted  with  the  task,  he  may  not  succeed 
in  bringing  together  a  group  that  will  have  the  confidence  of  the 
chamber,  and  in  that  event  some  other  person  will  have  to  be 
designated  to  make  the  attempt.     The  premier's  colleagues  are 
nominated  by  him  to  the  king,  by  whom  the  appointments  are 
officially  made.     To  be  eligible,  it  is  not  necessary  that  a  man 
be  a  member  of  either  chamber;  but  if  an  appointee  is  not  a 
member,  custom  requires  that  he  shall  seek  the  next  seat  that 
falls  vacant  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  unless  in  the  meantime 
he  shall  have  been  made  a  senator.     In  point  of  fact,  the  min- 
isters are  selected  almost  invariably  from  among  the  members 
of   Parliament,    and    mainly    from    the    Chamber   of   Deputies. 
Only  rarely  has  the  premiership  fallen  to  a  senator.     Ministers 
of  war  and  of  marine,  however,  being  chosen  —  as  was  formerly 
the  custom  in  France  —  largely  with  a  view  to  their  technical 
qualifications,  are  frequently  members  of  the  Senate  by  special 
appointment.     Under  a  law  of  1S88  each  minister  is  assisted 

1  The  separation  of  the  two  fiscal  ministries  dati  ["he  same  duality 

prevailed    in    Napoleon's  government   from    1S01    to    1 8i  ■.     The   disadvantages 
inherent  in  the  arrangement  are  sometimes  overcome  in   Italy    by  placing  both 
departments  in  charge  of  a  single  minister.     Stourm,  The  Budget,  476-478. 
199- 


THE   GOVERNMENTAL  SYSTEM  523 

by  an  under-secretary,  who  obtains  his  position  in  the  same 
manner  as  his  chief.  Internal  organization,  including  the  inter- 
relations of  the  several  departments  and  the  relations  sustained 
by  each  minister  with  the  premier,  is  regulated  by  a  decree  of 
1867,  promulgated  afresh,  with  some  minor  alterations,  in  1876. 

The  Ministry :  Functions  and  Status.  —  The  business  of  the 
ministers  is,  individually,  to  manage  the  affairs  of  their  several 
departments,  and,  collectively,  to  determine  policies,  initiate 
legislation,  and,  in  brief,  perform  the  functions  usually  belonging 
to  the  principal  ministers  under  a  cabinet  system  of  government.1 
Among  matters  which  the  law  requires  to  be  brought  before  the 
ministerial  council  in  all  cases  are  bills  which  are  to  be  submitted 
to  the  chambers  in  the  name  of  the  government,  treaties,  con- 
flicts of  administrative  jurisdiction,  and  proposals  relating  to  the 
status  of  the  Church,  to  petitions  from  the  chambers,  and  to 
nominations  of  senators,  diplomatic  representatives,  and  a  wide 
range  of  administrative  and  judicial  functionaries.  The  law  also 
enumerates  many  matters  which  must  be  brought  to  the  min- 
istry's attention,  although  action  thereon  is  not  made  compul- 
sory;  and  the  range  of  subjects  which  the  premier  or  other 
ministers  may  submit  for  consideration  is  purposely  left  without 
limit.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  premier  to  convoke  the  ministers  in 
council ;  to  preside  over  their  deliberations ;  to  maintain,  in  re- 
spect to  both  administrative  methods  and  political  policy,  as 
large  a  measure  of  ministerial  uniformity  and  solidarity  as  may 
be ;  and  to  require  from  time  to  time  full  reports  upon  the  affairs 
of  the  several  departments. 

The  constitution  authorizes  all  ministers  and  under-secretaries 
to  appear,  and  to  be  heard,  in  either  legislative  chamber,  although 
they,  of  course,  may  vote  in  only  the  chamber  to  which  they 
belong.  The  chambers  have  no  power  to  compel  the  presence 
of  these  officials ;  but  formal  requests  for  the  attendance  of  a 
certain  minister  on  a  given  day  are  often  made,  and  unless  there 
is  strong  reason  to  the  contrary,  they  are  likely  to  be  honored. 
Parliament,  indeed,  keeps  a  close  watch  on  the  ministers  and 
concerns  itself  quite  as  much  with  the  methods  and  results  of 
administration  as  does  the  parliament  of  France.  Ministers 
are  freely  questioned ;  and  the  right  of  interpellation  is  employed, 
and  abused,  no  less  extensively  than  in  France,  and  with  the 
same  tendency  to  upset  governments  which  otherwise  might 
achieve  some  measure  of  stability.     Documents  can  be  called 

1  It  will  be  observed  that  in  Italy,  as  in  France,  ministry  and  cabinet  are  identical 
in  personnel.     This  is,  of  course,  not  true  in  Great  Britain. 


S24  G0\  ERNMEN  rs  01    It  ROPE 

tor;  and  while  they  may  be  withheld,  a  minister  who  is  prudent 
will  think  twice  before  risking  a  refusal.  Legislative 
missions  oi  inquiry,  too,  may  be  set  up,  with  a  view  to  investi- 
gating any  administratis e  acl  or  polity.  The  pathway  of  a 
ministry  is  thus  beset  with  pitfalls;  votes  of  confidence  come  in 
quick  succession,  often  at  the  most  unexpe<  ted  and  inconvenient 
tinu-s.  W'lun  it  is  recalled  that  the  party  situation  is  equally 
chaotic  with  that  in  France,  so  that  every  ministry  is  a  coalition, 
dependent  upon  the  support  of  a  precarious  working  alliance  in 
the  Chamber,  one  will  qoI  fail  to  understand  why  political 
"crises"  are  frequent  and  changes  of  ministry  numerous.  As 
also  in  France,  it  is  hut  fair  to  say,  there  is  less  actual  instability 
than  might  be  supposed,  for  tin  reason  that  some  ministers 
usually  reappear  in  several  successive  cabinets,  which,  indeed. 
are  often  hardly  more  than  former  cabinets  reorganized. 

None  the  less,  the  average  Italian  ministry  is  not  an  imposing 
authority.  In  the  words  of  an  able  French  writer,  "  it  is  mani- 
festly unable  to  fulfill  effectively  the  three-fold  purpose  of  a 
parliamentary  cabinet.  It  exercises  the  executive  power  in  the 
name,  and  under  the  authority,  of  the  king;  but  it  does  not 
always  know  how  to  restrain  Parliament  within  the  bounds  of  its 
proper  control,  and  it  is  obliged  to  tolerate  the  interference  of 
deputies  in  the  administration.  Through  the  employment  of  the 
initiative,  and  of  influence  upon  the  at  ts  of  Parliament,  it  is  the 
power  which  impels  legislation;  but  not  infrequently  it  is  lacking 
in  the  authority  essential  to  push  through  the  reforms  which  it 
has  undertaken,  and  tin-  chamber  easily  evades  its  control.  It 
-eeks  to  maintain  harmony  between  the  two  powers  [execu- 
tive and  legislative];  but  the  repeated  defeats  which  it  suffers 
demonstrate  to  what  a  degree  its  work  is  impeded  by  the  dis- 
organization of  parties."  ' 

One  function  of  the  ministers,  as  the  working  executive,  re- 
quires a  farther  word  of  comment.  This  is  the  exercise  of  the 
ordinance  power.  The  administrative  system  of  Italy  is  modeled 
upon  that  of  France,  and,  therefore,  gives  an  unusually  large 
place  to  the  promulgation  and  enforcement  of  ordinances  by  the 
executive  authorities.  The  executive,  says  the  constitution, 
shall  "  make  decrees  and  regulations  necessary  for  the  execution 
of  the  laws,  without  suspending  their  execution,  or  granting 
exemptions  from  them.":  In  practice,  this  power  is  stretched 
even  farther  than  is  the  similar  power  of  the  executive  in  France, 

1  I  lupriez,  Les  minis tres,  1 .  291 . 

-  \rt.  6.     Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II,  5. 


THE   GOVERNMENTAL   SYSTEM  525 

leading  sometimes  to  the  creation  of  temporary  law,  or  even  the 
virtual  negation  of  parliamentary  enactments.  In  this  matter 
Parliament  is  seldom  disposed  to  stand  very  rigidly  upon  its 
rights ;  indeed,  it  sometimes  expressly  delegates  to  the  ministry 
the  exercise  of  sweeping  legislative  authority.  The  final  text  of 
the  great  electoral  law  of  1882,  for  example,  was  never  considered 
in  the  chambers  at  all.  After  debating  the  subject  to  their  satis- 
faction, the  two  houses  simply  committed  to  the  government  the 
task  of  drawing  up  a  final  draft  of  the  measure  and  of  promul- 
gating it  by  executive  decree.  The  same  procedure  has  been 
followed  on  other  important  measures.  Not  merely  the  ministers 
at  Rome,  but  also  the  local  administrative  agents,  freely  exercise 
the  ordinance-making  prerogative.  "  The  preference,  indeed,'' 
as  is  observed  by  Lowell,  "  for  administrative  regulations,  which 
the  government  can  change  at  any  time,  over  rigid  statutes  is 
deeply  implanted  in  the  Latin  races,  and  seems  to  be  especially 
marked  in  Italy."  1 

The  Senate.  —  Legislative  functions  are  vested  by  the  constitu- 
tion in  the  king  and  Parliament,  the  latter  consisting  of  two  cham- 
bers —  an  upper,  the  Senate,  and  a  lower,  the  Camera  de'  Deputali. 
Aside  from  princes  of  the  royal  blood,  who  sit  by  right  from  the 
age  of  twenty-one  and  become  voting  members  at  twenty-five, 
the  Senate  is  composed  exclusively  of  persons  appointed  for  life 
by  the  crown.  It  is,  along  with  the  Canadian  Senate,  the  best 
example  of  a  "  nominated  "  upper  chamber.  As  such,  it  stands 
somewhere  between  the  British  House  of  Lords,  which  is  pre- 
dominantly a  house  of  peers  sitting  by  hereditary  right,  and  the 
French  Senate,  whose  membership  is  recruited  by  indirect  popu- 
lar election.  In  making  appointments  to  the  Senate  the  king  is 
under  no  restriction  as  to  numbers.  But  he  must  select  all  of 
his  appointees  from  one  or  another  of  twenty-one  specified 
classes  of  citizens ;  and  he  must  observe  the  constitutional  re- 
quirement that  senators  shall  be  at  least  forty  years  of  age. 
The  categories  from  which  appointments  are  made  —  including 
high  ecclesiastics,  ministers  of  state,  ambassadors,  deputies  of 
extended  service,  legal  and  administrative  officials,  men  who 
during  as  much  as  seven  years  have  been  members  of  the  Royal 
Academy  of  Sciences  or  of  the  Superior  Council  of  Public  In- 
struction —  may  be  reduced,  broadly,  to  three :  (1)  high  officials 
of  church  and  state ;  (2)  persons  of  fame  in  science  or  literature, 

1  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  I,  166.  On  the  Italian  executive  in  general, 
see  Dupriez,  Les  ministres,  I,  281-329.  A  valuable  essay  is  M.  Caudel,  "Parle- 
mentarisme  italien,"  in  Ann.  dcs  Sci.  Polit.,  Sept.,  iooo. 


-.:,,  GOVERNMENTS  01    EUROPE 

or  who  by  any  kind  of  servi<  es  or  merit  have  brought  distinction 
to  the  country  ;  and  I  j)  persons  who  for  at  l>  ast  three  years  have 
paid  direct  property  or  income  taxes  to  the  amount  of  sooo  lire 
iS6oo).  Deaths,  resignations,  and  new  appointments  cause  the 
membership  to  fluctuate  considerably^  When  the  Statute  was 
put  in  effect  in  1S4S  the  number  was  78;  nowadays  it  is  about 
390.  As  constituted  in  1910,  the  body  in<  luded  the  president  of 
the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  147  ex-deputies  of  six  years'  service 
and  other  men  who  had  been  elected  to  as  many  as  three  parlia- 
ments, one  minister  of  state,  six  under  sei  retaries,  five  ambas- 
sadors, two  envoys  extraordinary.  23  officials  of  the  courts  of 
cassation  and  of  other  tribunals,  33  military  and  naval  officials, 
eight  councilors  of  state,  21  provincial  functionaries,  41  members 
of  the  Royal  Academy  of  Sciences,  three  members  of  the  Superior 
Council  of  Public  Instruction,  two  persons  of  distinguished  ser- 
vices to  the  country.  71  payers  of  direct  taxes  in  the  amount  of 
3000  lire,  and  19  other  scattered  representatives  of  several 
categories.  The  absence  of  ecclesiastical  dignitaries  is  to  be 
accounted  for  by  the  rupture  with  the  Vatican.  The  last  mem- 
bers of  this  class  to  be  named  were  appointed  in  1866.1 

In  its  composition  the  Senate  is,  therefore,  imposing.  It  is 
recruited  exclusively  from  persons  of  eminent  official  position, 
persons  of  recognized  literary,  scientific,  or  other  intellectual 
attainments,  and  persons  of  substance  as  denoted  by  tax-paying 
ability.  Its  members  are  of  mature  years.  "  If  ever,"  observes 
an  English  writer,  "  a  life-nominated  chamber  was  to  secure 
power,  the  Italian  Senate  would  surely  have  secured  it,  and 
would  have  become  renowned  for  stability  and  efficiency."  2 
Yet  the  result  has  been  an  upper  chamber  which  can  hardly  be 
regarded  as  better  than  a  fifth  wheel  of  the  governmental  coach. 
Appointment  by  the  king  means  in  practice  appointment  by  the 
ministry  commanding  a  majority  in  the  lower  chamber,  and, 
therefore,  appointment  with  a  view  to  the  political  situation  at  the 
moment.  Swamping  the  opposition  by  the  creation  of  senators 
is  an  oft-used  expedient.  In  1886  forty-one  appointments  were 
made  at  a  stroke  for  this  purpose;  in  1890,  seventy-five;  in  1892, 
forty-two.  The  Senate  jealously  guards  its  right  to  determine 
whether  an  appointee  is  properly  to  be  considered  as  belonging 
to  any  of  the  twenty-one  stipulated  categories,  and  if  it  decides 
that  he  is  not  eligible,  he  is  refused  a  seat.     But  as  long  as  the 

1  The  total  number  of  senators  remained  unchanged  in  1017,  although  the  dis- 
tribution by  groups  was  somewhat  different. 
1  Temperl  and  Upper  Chambers,  o.^. 


THE   LrUVH.KiNMi^iMAi.   a  i  STEM  527 

government  keeps  clearly  within  the  enumerated  classes,  no 
limitation  can  be  placed  by  the  Senate  itself  upon  the  appointing 
power.1 

As  a  result,  the  legislative  independence  of  the  chamber  has 
been  reduced  to  a  nullity.  "  The  premier,"  says  Temperley, 
"  ends  his  political  existence  in  a  few  years,  but  leaves  his  crea- 
tions behind  him  in  the  upper  chamber,  and  the  life-peers  of  the 
Senate  are  confronted  with  a  new  premier  and  a  new  lower  cham- 
ber. The  Pharaoh  who  knows  them  not  has  appeared,  and  he 
calls  on  them  to  choose  between  the  most  strenuous  opposition 
or  the  most  complete  submission  to  him.  In  the  first  case,  the 
Senate  brings  the  parliamentary  machine  to  a  deadlock  in  the 
present ;  in  the  second,  it  mortgages  and  barters  away  its  own 
power  for  the  future.  Between  these  two  alternatives  the 
Italian  Senate  has  been  unable  to  steer."  2  Twenty  years  ago 
the  body  practically  gave  up  the  struggle  for  real  power.  It  is 
useful  to-day  as  a  revising  agency,  and  it  sometimes  manages  to 
secure  important  ^changes  in  the  details  of  proposed  laws.  But 
it  is  no  longer  a  checking  or  an  initiating  branch,  and  as  a  rule  it 
does  not  oppose  the  great  measures  of  the  lower  house  at  all. 
Between  1861  and  19 10  the  government  presented  in  the  Cham- 
ber of  Deputies  a  total  of  7569  legislative  proposals,  in  the 
Senate  only  598;  and  the  number  of  projects  of  law  originated 
by  the  Senate  itself  during  this  same  period  was  but  thirty-nine. 
In  volume  and  range  of  legislative  activity,  Italy's  life-nominated 
Senate  contrasts  sharply  with  the  elective  upper  chamber  of 
France,  and  abundantly  confirms  the  experience  of  Canada  with 
an  upper  house  of  similar  character.3 

Italy  is  one  of  the  several  countries  in  which  second  chamber 
reform  became  an  important  public  question  in  the  first  decade 
of  the  present  century.  The  Senate,  it  was  felt,  should  be 
brought  into  closer  touch  with  the  people  and  made  a  vigorous, 
if  not  a  truly  coordinate,  legislative  house.  In  19 10  the  subject 
was  discussed  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  itself,  and  at  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  ministry  a  commission  of  nine  members  was 
created  to  study  "  the  timeliness,  the  method,  and  the  extent  " 

1  Of  1528  appointments  made  between  1848  and  1910,  only  63  were  refused 
confirmation  by  the  Senate. 

2  Senates  and  Upper  Chambers,  94. 

3  It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  with  a  view  to  governmental  balance  and  stabil- 
ity, Cavour  favored  an  elective  upper  house.  For  illustrations  of  the  Senate's 
weakness  see  C.  Morizot-Thibault,  Des  draits  des  chambres  hautcs  on  shials  en  mature 
des  lois  de  finance  (Paris,  1891),  156-175.  On  the  Canadian  Senate  see  Porritt, 
Evolution  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  Chap.  xi. 


528  GCN  ERNMEN  I  ■   01     El  ROPE 

of  various  proposed  reforms.     Late  in  the  year,  this  commis- 
sion brought  in  an  elaborate  report,  written  principally  by  Sena- 
tor Arcoleo,  a  Leading  authority  on  constitutional  law.     After 
pointing  out  that  among  European  nations  the  ret  (institution 
and  modernization  of  upper  chambers  was  a  subjecl  of  much 
current  interest,  the  commission  proposed  a  carefully  consid- 
ered scheme  for  popularizing  and  strengthening  the  senatorial 
body.    The  substance  of  the  plan  was:  (i)  the  chamber  should 
henceforth  be  composed  of  350  members;  (2)  the  membership 
should  be  divided  into  three  categories,  designated,  respectively, 
as  officials,  men  of  science  and  education,  and  men  of  political  or 
economic  status;  and  (3)  members  of  the  first  category,  not  to 
exceed  120,  should  be  appointed,  as  are  practically  all  members 
at  present,  by  the  crown;  but  members  of  the  other  two  should 
be  elected  by  fifteen  special  colleges  so  constituted  that  their 
membership  would  represent  actual  and  varied  groups  of  inter- 
ests throughout  the  nation.     The  professors  in  the  universities, 
for  example,  organized  for  the  purpose  as  an  electoral  college, 
were  to  be  authorized  to  choose  thirty  *epresentatives.     Other 
elements  to  be  admitted  to  participation,  as  such,  in  the  elec- 
tions were  to  include  former  deputies,  large  taxpayers,  provin- 
cial and  communal  assemblies,  chambers  of  commerce,  agricul- 
tural  societies,   and  workingmen's  associations.     The  primary 
idea  of  those  who  propounded  the  scheme  was  that  through  its 
adoption  a  more  vital  contact  would  be  established  between  the 
Senate  and  the  varied  forces  that  contribute  to  the  life  of  the 
nation.     Unfortunately,  the  Senate  did  not  back  up  its  com- 
mittee's proposal.     Rather,  it  contented  itself  with  voting  in 
favor  of  an  enlargement  of  the  classes  of  citizens  from  which 
senators  may  be  appointed  by  the  king;  although,  in  February, 
191 1,  it  went  so  far  as  to  request  the  ministry  to  present  new 
proposals,  and,  in  particular,  a  plan  to  vest  in  the  Senate  the 
choice  of  its  presiding  officer.     There  has  been  to  date  (1020) 
no  farther  progress  toward  a  solution  of  the  problem.     It  seems 
probable,  however,  that  agreement  will  eventually  be  reached 
upon  some  such  plan  as  that  which  the  commission  of  19 10 
prepared.1 

1  [  Pagliano,  //  Senato  e  la  nomina  dei  senatori  (Rome,  too6);  L.  A.Magro, 
Varislocraziae  il Senato  (I  latania,  1909) ;  [.Tambaro,  "La  relormi  du  S6na1  it  alien  " 
in  a-,  Pub.,  fuly  Sept.,  roio,  and  "Lei  dfibat      lit  la  reiorme  du  Senal 

italien,"  ibid.,   fuly  Sept.,  1911;    M.  Scelle,  "Reforme  du   Senal    italien,"  ibid., 
I  »a  ..  i'ii  1  ;  Nazzareno,  "I.a  riforma  del  Senato,"  in  Rivista  di  Dirillo  Pub- 
HI.  171.     The  report  of  the  commission  of  1910  is  in  Per  la  riforma  del  Senato 
relatione  delta  comm  R  ime,  run. 


THE   GOVERNMENTAL  SYSTEM  529 

The  Chamber  of  Deputies  :  Electoral  Arrangements  to  19 12.— 
The  lower  branch  of  Parliament  consists  of  508  members  chosen 
simultaneously  by  direct  vote,  and  by  secret  ballot,  in  single- 
member  districts.  The  term  is  five  years ;  but  a  dissolution  is 
practically  certain  to  take  place  before  the  end  of  the  full  period, 
and  the  average  interval  between  elections  is  nearer  three  years 
than  five.  Deputies  are  not  required  to  be  residents  of  the  dis- 
tricts which  they  represent,  but  they  must  be  citizens  not  less 
than  thirty  years  of  age,  in  possession  of  full  civil  and  political 
rights,  and  not  members  of  certain  classes  (chiefly  clergymen 
and  salaried  government  officials)  specially  debarred.  In  late 
years  a  system  of  nomination  of  parliamentary  candidates  by 
petition  has  been  introduced ;  and  in  191 2  provision  was  made  for 
the  first  time  for  payment  of  a  salary  to  members,  amounting 
to  6000  lire  ($1200)  annually.  To  be  elected,  a  candidate  must 
poll  not  only  a  number  of  votes  in  excess  of  one-sixth  of  the  total 
number  of  enrolled  electors  within  his  district,  but  also  an 
absolute  majority  of  all  the  votes  cast.  If,  after  balloting,  it  is 
found  that  no  candidate  meets  this  requirement,  a  second  ballot 
(ballottaggio)  takes  place  after  a  week.1  At  each  polling  place 
the  presiding  officer  and  "  scrutineers  "  are  chosen  by  the  voters 
present.  The  method  of  voting  is  simple.  In  the"polling- 
room  stands  a  table,  on  which  are  placed  two  square  glass  boxes, 
one  empty,  the  other  containing  the  voting  papers.  As  the  list 
of  enrolled  electors  is  read  alphabetically,  each  man  steps  forward, 
receives  a  ballot  paper,  takes  it  to  an  adjoining  table  and  writes 
on  it  the  name  of  the  candidate  for  whom  he  wishes  to  vote, 
folds  the  paper,  and  deposits  it  in  the  box  reserved  for  the  purpose. 
After  the  list  has  been  read  through  any  voter  who  was  not 
present  to  respond  when  his  name  was  called  may  cast  his  ballot 
in  a  similar  manner.  The  polling  hours  extend,  as  a  rule,  from 
9  a.  m.  to  4  p.  m.2 

A  main  problem  of  Italian  domestic  politics  during  the  past 
fifty  years  has  been  the  parliamentary  franchise ;  and  one  of  the 
most  notable  events  in  the  recent  history  of  democratic  govern- 
ment was  the  introduction  of  manhood  suffrage  in  Italy,  almost 

1  At  theelections  of  March,  1909,  in  75  of  the  508  districts  no  candidate  received 
an  adequate  majority.  In  57  of  these  districts  the  candidate  who,  at  the  first 
ballot,  had  received  the  largest  number  of  votes  was  elected  at  the  second  ballot. 
The  political  effect  of  the  second  ballot  is  slight.  At  the  election  of  1900  there 
were  77  second  ballotings ;  at  that  of  1904,  39.  A.  N.  Holcombe,  "  Direct  Primaries 
and  the  Second  Ballot,"  in  Amer.  Polit.  Set.  Rev.,  Nov.,  ion  ;  A.  F.  Locatelli, 
" Considerazioni  intorno  all'  opportunita  di  abolire  il  ballottaggio,"  in  La  Riforma 
Sociale,  July-Aug.,  1910. 

2  King  and  Okey,  Italy  To-day,  14. 


530  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

tripling  the  electorate  at  a  stroke,  by  the  electoral  law  of  June  30, 
1912.  The  history  of  the  suffrage  since  the  establishment  of 
the-  present  kingdom  falls  into  three  periods,  separated  by  the 
legislation  of  1 88 j  and  1912.  Under  a  law  of  i860  the  suffrage 
was  restricted  to  male  property-holders  who  were  able  to  read 
and  write,  who  had  attained  the  age  of  twenty-five,  and  who 
paid  an  annual  tax  of  at  least  forty  lire  ($8)  qualifications 
which  not  more  than  two  and  one-half  per  cent  of  the  population 
could  meet.  In  [882,  after  prolonged  consideration  of  the  sub- 
ject, the  ministry  carried  through  Parliament  a  series  of  measures 
reducing  the  property  qualification  from  forty  lire  to  nineteen 
lire  eighty  centesimi  (about  $3.95)  and  lowering  the  age  limit  to 
twenty-one  years.  The  disqualification  of  illiteracy  was  retained, 
and  a  premium  was  placed  upon  literacy  by  the  extension  of 
the  franchise,  regardless  of  property,  to  all  males  over  twenty- 
one  who  had  received  a  primary  school  education.  The  net 
result  was  to  raise  the  number  of  voters  from  627,838  to  2.049,461 , 
about  two-thirds  of  the  new  electors  obtaining  the  franchise 
by  reason  of  their  ability  to  meet  the  educational  qualification. 
An  incidental  effect  of  the  reform  was  to  augment  the  political 
influence  of  the  cities,  because  the  proportion  of  illiterates  was 
smaller  in  them  than  in  the  country  districts.  Small  landed 
proprietors,  although  of  a  more  conservative  temperament,  and 
frequently  of  a  better  economic  status,  than  the  urban  artisans, 
were  usually  unable  to  fulfill  the  educational  qualification. 

( )riginally,  deputies  were  elected  in  single-member  districts. 
With  a  view  to  liberating  them  from  the  tyranny  of  local  in- 
fluence, the  law  of  1882  distributed  the  508  seats  among  135 
districts,  which  elected  from  two  to  five  deputies  apiece;  and  in 
order  to  secure  some  representation  for  minorities  it  was  farther 
provided  that  in  districts  electing  five  deputies,  no  elector  should 
vote  for  more  than  four.  The  new  scrutinio  di  lista,  however, 
did  not  yield  satisfactory  results,  and  an  act  of  May  5,  1891, 
created  a  commission  which  divided  the  country  into  508  single- 
member  districts ;  and  during  the  past  quarter-century  this 
arrangement  has  been  uninterruptedly  adhered  to. 

As  the  system  stood  prior  to  the  electoral  law  of  191 2,  voters 
generally  were  required  to  have  the  following  qualifications : 
1  1  I  Italian  citizenship;  (2)  minimum  age  of  twenty-one;  (3)  abil- 
ity to  read  and  write  ;  (4)  passage  of  examinations  in  the  subjects 
included  in  the  course  of  compulsory  elementary  education. 
flu  last-mentioned  qualification  was  not,  however,  required  of 
public  officials,  graduates  of  colleges,  professional  men,  persons 


THE   GOVERNMENTAL  SYSTEM  531 

who  had  served  two  years  in  the  army,  citizens  who  paid  an- 
nually a  direct  tax  of  not  less  than  nineteen  lire  eighty  centesimi, 
those  who  paid  an  annual  agricultural  rental  of  500  lire,  those 
who  paid  house-rent  of  from  150  lire  in  communes  of  2500  people 
to  400  lire  in  communes  of  over  150,000,  and  certain  less  impor- 
tant classes.  Through  the  operation  of  the  literacy  test  the 
system  provided  an  avenue  for  an  indefinite  increase  of  the  num- 
ber of  voters,  although  the  obstacles  to  universal  elementary 
education  continued  to  be  so  numerous  and  so  weighty  that  the 
democratization  of  the  state  proceeded  with  extreme  slowness. 
In  1904  the  number  of  enrolled  electors  was  2,541,327,  exclusive 
of  26,056  temporarily  disfranchised  because  of  being  engaged  in 
active  military  service.  This  was  but  29  per  cent  of  the  male 
population  over  twenty-one  years  of  age,  and  7.67  per  cent  of 
the  total  population.  In  June,  191 2,  immediately  before  the 
enactment  of  the  law  establishing  manhood  suffrage,  the  number 
of  voters  was  3,247,772,  in  a  total  population  of  34,671,377.  It 
is  to  be  observed,  furthermore,  that  the  proportion  of  registered 
electors  actually  voting  was  ordinarily  astonishingly  small.  At 
the  elections  of  November,  1904,  the  number  who  went  to  the 
polls  was  1,593,886,  which  was  but  62.7  per  cent  of  those  who 
had  a  right  to  do  so.  In  individual  cities  and  provinces  the  pro- 
portion sometimes  fell  as  low  as  thirty,  or  even  twenty,  per  cent. 

The  Electoral  Law  of  19 12.  —  So  ominous  was  the  menace  of 
illiteracy  that  only  within  comparatively  recent  years  was  there 
serious  thought  of  introducing  a  system  of  manhood  suffrage. 
After  1900  a  movement  in  this  direction  began  to  gather  strength. 
It  found  support,  not  only  among  the  Socialists  and  other  rad- 
icals, but  among  men  who  felt  that  the  illiberality  of  the  existing 
franchise  branded  the  nation  in  the  eyes  of  the  world  as  back- 
ward and  inferior.  The  question  of  electoral  reform  became 
paramount  in  party  politics ;  ministries  rose  and  fell  because  of 
their  attitude  upon  it.  There  was  much  discussion,  —  official, 
academic,  and  popular,  —  although  not  so  much  candid  weigh- 
ing of  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  the  proposed  change 
as  there  should  have  been.  Finally,  in  June,  191 1,  the  third 
Giolitti  ministry  laid  before  Parliament  a  measure  in  which  the 
demands  of  the  franchise  extensionists  were  met  more  satisfac- 
torily than  in  previous  projects,  and  on  May  29,  191 2,  the  bill 
was  passed  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  by  the  decisive  vote  of 
284  to  62.  After  some  weeks  the  Senate  acted  upon  it  favor- 
ably, and  on  June  30  the  law  was  formally  approved. 

The  measure  bestows  the  suffrage  upon  substantially  all  adult 


GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROP1 

lnaic  .  itizens,1  \vh<»  arc  divided  for  the  purpose  Into  three  <  ate 
gories.     One  comprises  literates  of  a  minimum  age  of  twenty- 
one,  without  regard  t<>  property  or  other  qualification.      \  >econd 
comprises,   similarly,   illiterates  of  a   minimum   age  of   thirty. 
The  third  consists  of  persons  who  have  rendered  service  in  the 
army  or  navy,  without  regard  for  education,  property,  or  age. 
The  mi:  iber  of  electors  was  thus  raised  from  -,.247,722  to  8,635,- 
1  iS.  of  whom  more  than  half,  it  is  estimated,  cannot  read  or  write. 
Opportunity  to  test  the  new  arrangements  was  afforded  by  the 
parliamentary  elections  of  [913,  which  were  hailed  by  enthusiasts 
as   the   first   elections  of  a  truly   national   character  in   Italian 
history.     The  results  were  not  altogether  reassuring.     The  five 
million  illiterates  upon  whom  the  franchise  had  been  conferred 
availed  themselves  of  their  new  and  unfamiliar  privilege  spar- 
ingly.    Despite  the  efforts  of  the  various  parties  to  enlist  as 
many  as  possible  of  the  new  voters,  the  percentage  of  the  electors 
who  went  to  the  polls  was,  in  many  districts,  smaJler  than  at  the 
elections  of  1909.     In  Rome  the  percentage  in  1909  was  fifty, 
while  in  1913  it  was  but  thirty-five.     The  stolid  assumption  of 
the  mass  of  the  newly  enfranchised  that  the  intricacies  of  the 
electoral  process  were  not  to  be  mastered,  or  were  not  worth 
mastering,   afforded   striking   evidence   of   the   nation's   unprc- 
paredness  for  manhood  suffrage,  and,  therefore,  of  the  dubious- 
ness of  the  law  by  which  the  innovation  was  introduced.     In 
thirty  years  Italy  has  achieved  a  record  of  economic  growth  and 
of  social  reform  of  which  a  nation  may  be  proud.     The  Italian 
aptitude  for  orderly  politics  is,  however,  imperfectly  developed, 
and  much  time  will  be  required  to  build  up  a  political  morale 
equal  to  the  English  or  the  French.     On  the  whole,  however,  it 
may  prove  not  disadvantageous  that  opportunity  has  been  pro- 
vided for  the  mass  of  the  people,  rich  and  poor,  literate  and  il- 
literate, to  acquire  their  political  experience  and  political  acumen 
through  the  exercise  of  common  privileges  and  responsibilities.2 

1  A  determined  effort  was  made  to  carry  an  amendmenl  conferring  the  vote  upon 
educated  and  professional  women.  The  Socialists,  indeed,  demanded  the  suffrage 
for  all  adult  women.  No  proposal  on  the  subject  was  adopted,  although  the 
femini  athered  new  strength  as  a  result  of  the  debates. 

2  On  the  subject  of  electoral  reform  see  A.  Piebantoni,  La  riforma  della 
elettorale  (Naples  1009);  G.  Bandini,  La  riforma  elettorale  con  la  rappresentan  a 
proper  ionale  nell  •  elezioni  polii'u  he  I  Rome,  1910) ;  G.  Sabini,  La  riforma  del  sistcma 
elettorale  in  Italia  (Turin,  1910);  Siotto-Pintor,  "EsteUsione  del  suffragio  e 
disl  ribuzione  della  rappresentanza,-'  in  Rivista  di  Dirilto  Pubblico,  1  >ec.,  191 1,  and  La 
riforma  del  ri-gimr  elettorale  e  le  doitrine  della  rappresentanza  politico  e  dell'  elettoralo 

serolo  XX  (Rome,  1912'.  The  law  of  1912  is  analyzed  in  F.  Celentano, 
Studio  iritico  della  miova  legge  elettorale  politico  (Rome,  1914), and  the  results  of  the 
first  elections  held  under  it  (1913)  are  considered  in  A.  Ruiz,  /  resultali  del  prima 


THE   GOVERNMENTAL   SYSTEM  533 

Parliamentary  Organization  and  Procedure.  Under  pro- 
visions of  the  constitution,  neither  branch  of  Parliament  may  be 
summoned  without  the  other,  and  the  sessions  of  the  two  houses 
must  begin  and  end  at  the  same  time.1  Annual  sessions  are  not 
stipulated,  but  the  needs  of  the  Treasury  and  of  other  branches 
of  administration  require  that  there  shall  be  at  least  one  session 
a  year ;  a  session,  indeed,  sometimes  extends,  with  occasional 
recesses,  over  an  entire  year,  or  even  two  years.  In  the  Senate, 
the  president  and  vice-president  are  named  by  the  king ;  the 
secretaries  are  selected  by  the  members  from  their  own  number. 
In  the  Chamber,  all  officers  are  chosen  by  the  members  for  the 
duration  of  the  session.  Although  endowed  with  power  to  ap- 
point certain  important  committees,  such  as  those  on  rules  and 
contested  elections,  the  president  of  the  Chamber  is  commonly 
reelected,  without  regard  to  party  affiliations,  as  long  as  he  is 
willing  to  serve,  after  the  manner  of  the  Speaker  of  the  British 
House  of  Commons.  The  membership  of  the  Chamber  of  Depu- 
ties is  divided  into  nine  uffici,  or  sections,  and  that  of  the  Senate 
into  five.  A  fresh  division,  by  lot,  takes  place  every  two  months. 
The  principal  function  of  the  uffici  is  the  election  of  committees 
for  whose  selection  no  other  provision  is  made.  In  each  chamber 
the  most  important  of  all  committees,  that  on  the  budget,  is 
elected  directly  by  the  entire  membership.  In  the  lower  house 
certain  other  committees  are  elected  in  the  same  way ;  while,  as 
has  been  said,  those  on  elections  and  on  rules  are  appointed  by 
the  president.  But  committees  specially  constituted  for  the 
consideration  of  particular  measures  are  made  up  of  members 
chosen  from  the  various  uffici,  unless  the  chamber  designates 
some  other  method. 

Each  house  frames  its  own  rules  of  procedure.  The  consti- 
tution stipulates  that  the  sessions  shall  be  public  .(with  the 
qualification  that  on  motion  of  ten  members  secret  sessions  may 
be  held) ;  that  Italian  shall  be  the  official  language ;  that  no 
session  or  vote  of  either  house  shall  be  valid  unless  an  absolute 
majority  of  the  members  is  present;  and  that  neither  house 
shall  receive  any  deputation,  or  give  hearings  to  persons  other 
than  the  legislative  members,  ministers,  and  commissioners  of 
the  government.2     It  is   farther  enjoined   that  deputies   shall 

esperimento  deW  allargato  suffragio  politico,  in  Riv.  di  Diritto  Pnbblico,  Nov.- Dec., 

I9I3- 

1  Art.  48.     Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  II,  12. 

2  Arts.  52-54,  59,  62.  Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  II,  12-13.  _  In  practice,  the 
requirement  of  the  presence  of  an  absolute  majority  of  members  is  sometimes  dis- 
regarded. 


534  GOVERNMEN  rs  OF    EUROP] 

represent  tin-  nation  as  a  whole,  and  not  the  districts  from  which 
they  are  chosen,  and  to  this  end  no  binding  instructions  may  be 
imposed  upon  them  by  the  electors.  Votes  are  taken  by  rising, 
by  division,  or  by  secret  ballot,  the  third  method  being  obliga- 
tory in  all  final  do  isions  on  lulls,  ami  on  measures  of  a  personal 
nature. 

The  two  houses  have  concurrenl  powers  of  legislation;  that  is, 
all  measures,  in  order  to  become  law.  musl  be  considered  and 
acted  upon  by  both.  The  Senate  is  invested  also  with  a  quasi- 
judicial  character  by  a  provision  of  the  constitution  which  au- 
thorize- the  crown  to  constitute  it  a  high  court  for  the  trial  of 
cases  involving  treason  or  other  attempts  upon  the  safety  of  the 
state,  and  for  the  trial  of  ministers  against  whom  impeachment 
proceedings  are  brought  by  the  lower  chamber;  and.  as  in  Eng- 
land, bills  that  have  a  distinct  judicial  bearing  an-  introduced 
first  in  the  upper  house.  All  money  bills,  however,  musl  be  intro- 
duced first  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  ;  and.  as  has  been  pointed 
out,  the  great  majority  of  measures  of  a  miscellaneous  character 
make  their  first  appearance  there.  Naturally,  most  bills  — 
especially  important  ones  are  brought  forward  by  the  prime 
minister  or  some  other  minister  or  undersecretary.  But  non- 
ministerial  members  introduce  bills  more  freely  than  in  England. 
The  members  are  not  so  much  restrained  by  party  discipline  as 
are  members  of  the  English  Parliament;  besides,  the  ministry 
is,  as  a  rule,  too  uncertain  of  its  tenure  to  feel  free  to  rebuff 
members  who  desire  to  submit  measures.  The  private  member 
who  wishes  to  introduce  a  bill  must  first  obtain  consent,  which  is 
given  in  the  Senate  by  two-fifths  of  the  members  voting  and  in 
the  Chamber  of  Deputies  by  approval  of  three  of  the  nine  uffici. 
Even  when  the  ministry  is  unfavorably  disposed,  it  is  not  likely 
to  try  to  prevent  a  private  member  from  getting  his  bill  before 
the  chambers;  so  that  the  necessary  consenl  is  seldom  withheld. 
Codes  and  organic  laws  almost  invariably  originate  with  the 
government,  but  many  ordinary  statutes  spring  from  proposals 
offered  by  deputies  or  senators  who  are  not  of  the  ministerial 
group.1 

The  Judiciary. — The  constitution  contains  broad  provisions 
relative  to  the  administration  of  justice  which  seem  amply  to 
safeguard  the  rights  of  the  citizen  ;  great  codes  covering  civil  law, 
criminal  law,  commercial  4aw,  civil  procedure,  and  criminal 
procedure,  enacted  at  various  times  between   1865  and  1889, 

1  The  history  of  Italian  legislation  is  best  presented  in  A.  Capo/.ioand  U.  Maculan, 
India*  sistematico  cronologico  delta  legislazione  italiana,  t86i—iqi\7    Rome,  1918). 


THE   GOVERNMENTAL   SYSTEM  535 

seek  to  give  uniformity  to  the  law  in  all  parts  of  the  realm ;  and 
to  the  scattered  tribunals  carried  over  from  the  period  before 
1861  have  been  added,  largely  on  the  French  model,  courts 
sufficient  to  give  the  country  one  of  the  most  elaborate  of  Euro- 
pean judicial  systems. 

First  of  all,  the  kingdom  is  divided  into  1535  mandamenti,1 
162  tribunal  districts,  and  20  appellate  court  districts.  In  each 
mandamento  is  a  pretura,  or  magistracy,  which  exercises  juris- 
diction in  civil  cases,  and  also  in  cases  involving  misdemeanors 
(contravvenzioni)  and  offenses  (dclitte)  punishable  by  imprison- 
ment not  exceeding  three  months,  or  banishment  not  exceeding 
one  year,  or  a  fine  not  exceeding  1000  lire.  In  minor  civil  cases, 
involving  sums  not  in  excess  of  100  lire,  jurisdiction  is  vested  in 
justices  of  the  peace  {giudici  conciliatori) ,  who,  upon  request, 
act  as  arbitrators  in  cases  involving  any  amount.  In  each  of 
thirteen  of  the  largest  cities  there  is  a  pretura  which  exercises  penal 
jurisdiction  exclusively.  Next  above  the"  pretori  stand  the  penal 
courts,  one  in  each  of  the  162  tribunal  districts.  These  are 
courts  of  first  instance  for  offenses  involving  a  maximum  im- 
prisonment of  ten  years  or  a  fine  of  more  than  1000  lire ;  and 
they  hear  appeals  from  the  decisions  of  the  pretori.  Closely 
associated  are  the  courts  of  assise,  which  have  original  jurisdic- 
tion in  cases  involving  a  penalty  of  imprisonment  for  life,  or  for  a 
period  longer  than  a  minimum  of  five,  and  a  maximum  of  ten, 
years.  Save  when  the  Senate  is  organized  as  a  high  court  of 
justice,  these  tribunals  have  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  all  press 
offenses  and  of  all  cases  involving  attacks  upon  the  security  of 
the  state.  As  a  rule,  the  courts  of  assize  make  use  of  juries. 
There  is  no  appeal  from  their  decisions  save  upon  a  point  of  form ; 
and  appeal  lies  solely  to  the  court  of  cassation  at  Rome.  From 
the  penal  tribunals  appeal  lies,  in  cases  not  dealt  with  by  the 
assize  courts,  to  the  twenty  courts  of  appeal. 

At  the  top  of  the  system  stand  five  practically  independent 
courts  of  cassation,  located  at  the  historic  capitals  of  Turin, 
Florence,  Naples,  Palermo,  and  Rome.  Each  of  these  exercises, 
within  its  own  territory,  final  jurisdiction  in  all  cases  involving 
questions  of  error  in  the  application  of  the  ordinary  civil  law. 
The  court  of  cassation  at  Rome,  it  is  true,  has  been  given  ex- 
clusive jurisdiction  in  conflicts  of  competence  between  different 
courts,    conflicts   between    the   courts   and    the   administrative 

1  Prior  to  1901  the  administrative  and  electoral  mandamenti  and  the  mandamenti 
giudiziarii  were  identical  geographically,  and  there  were  1805  of  them.  A  law 
of  the  year  mentioned  reduced  the  judicial  mandamenti  to  1535. 


536  GOVERNMEN  rS   01     El  ROPE 

authorities,  the  transfer  of  suits  from  one  tribunal  to  another, 
writ-  of  error  in  criminal  cases  and  a  variety  of  other  special 
matters.  But,  aside  from  this,  the  five  tribunals  are  equal  in 
rank  and  function;  there  is  no  appeal  from  one  to  another,  and 
the  decisions  arrived  at  by  one  do  nol  constitute  precedents 
which  the  others  are  obliged  to  recognize.  <  me  of  the  most  strik- 
ing aspects,  indeed,  of  the  Italian  judicial  system  is  its  lack  of 
centralization;  although  it  should  be  added  that  the  central- 
izing principle  which,  since  1870,  has  so  notably  permeated  all 
other  departments  of  the  government  has  been  gradually  winning 
its  way  in  the  judiciary. 

In  Italy,  as  in  other  continental  countries,  a  sharp  distinction 
is  maintained  between  public  and  private  law.  The  separation 
of  functions  between  the  ordinary  and  the  administrative  courts 
is,  however,  not  so  clear-cut  as  in  France  and  elsewhere.  In 
1865,  indeed,  the  surviving  administrative  courts  of  the  states 
which  had  been  drawn  into  the  kingdom  were  abolished,  and  it 
was  arranged  that  the  ordinary  courts  should  exercise  unre- 
stricted jurisdiction  in  all  criminal  cases  and  in  all  civil  cases  in 
which,  by  decision  of  the  Council  of  State,  a  civil  or  political 
right  was  involved.  The  system  worked  poorly,  and  laws  of 
June  2,  1889,  and  May  1,  1890,  set  off  a  special  section  of  the 
Council  of  State  (composed  of  a  president  and  eight  councilors 
named  by  the  king)  to  serve  as  an  administrative  court,  while 
at  the  same  time  an  inferior  administrative  jurisdiction  was 
conferred  upon  the  giunta  (prefect  and  certain  assistants)  of  the 
province.  In  practice  to-day.  when  the  legality  of  acts  com- 
mitted by  the  administrative  officials  is  called  in  question,  the 
ordinary  courts  exercise  jurisdiction  if  the  question  is  one  of 
private  right;  if  it  is  one  merely  of  private  interest,  it  goes  for  de- 
cision to  an  administrative  tribunal.  In  most  continental  coun- 
tries all  cases  involving  the  legality  of  official  acts  fall  within  the 
domain  of  the  administrative  courts. 

The  judicial  system  is  not  notably  satisfactory;  it  is,  indeed, 
distinctly  inferior  to  that  of  France.  Lack  of  the  unifying 
influence  of  a  single  supreme  tribunal  is  a  handicap.  The 
national  prejudice  against  judge-made  law  obstructs  the  growth 
of  judicial  custom.  More  important  still,  the  judges  —  although 
by  the  terms  of  the  constitution  irremovable  after  three  years 
of  service  (except  in  the  lowest  courts),  and  by  statute  removable 
only  for  crime  or  neglect  of  duty,  and  only  with  the  consent 
of  the  court  of  cassation  at  Rome  are  transferable  from 
one  post  to  another  by  order  of  the  government,  and  hence 


THE   GOVERNMENTAL   SYSTEM  537 

are  by  no  means  as  free  as  they  ought  to  be  from  executive 
control.1 

Local  Government :  the  Province.  —  In  her  historic  terri- 
torial divisions  Italy  once  had  the  basis  of  a  natural  and  whole- 
somely decentralized  system  of  local  government.  Instead  of 
availing  themselves  of  it,  however,  the  founders  of  the  present 
kingdom  reduced  the  realm  to  a  tabula  rasa  and  erected  a  new 
and  symmetrical  hierarchy  of  territorial  divisions  and  govern- 
mental organs.  A  great  statute  of  March  20,  1865,  introduced 
a  system  of  provincial  and  communal  organization,  whose 
essentials  were  taken  over  in  part  from  Belgium,  but  chiefly 
from  France.  The  functions  and  relations  of  the  various  local 
agencies  were  amplified  and  given  substantially  their  present 
form  in  the  law  of  December  30,  1888,  supplemented  and  amended 
by  acts  of  July,  7,  1889,  and  July  n,  1894.  So  closely  has  the 
French  model  been  followed  that  the  resemblance  between  the 
two  systems  amounts  almost  to  duplication.  The  Italian  sys- 
tem calls,  therefore,  for  no  extended  description. 

The  areas  of  local  government  are  four  in  number  —  the 
province,  the  circondaro,  the  mandamento ,  and  the  commune.  Of 
these,  the  first  and  last  alone  possess  distinct  interests  and  some 
measure  of  autonomy  and  therefore  of  vitality..  The  circon- 
daro, corresponding  to  the  French  arrondissement,  is  essentially 
an  electoral  division.  Strictly,  there  are  in  the  kingdom  197 
circondari;  but  87  districts  comprising  the  province  of  Mantua 
and  the  eight  provinces  of  Venetia  are,  in  all  save  name,  cir- 
condari also.  The  1805  mandamenti,  or  cantons,  are  mere 
subdivisions  of  the  provinces  for  administrative  purposes. 

There  are  69  provinces,  varying  considerably  in  size,  but  with 
an  average  population  of  450,000  to  500,000. 2  The  Italian 
province  corresponds  closely  to  the  French  department.  At 
its  head  is  a  prefect,  appointed  by  the  crown.  Like  the  French 
prefect,  the  Italian  is  a  political  official,  and  the  fact  not  merely 
influences  his  appointment  but  greatly  affects  his  conduct  in 
office.  As  representative  and  agent  of  the  central  government 
he  publishes  and  executes  the  laws,  supervises  the  provincial 
administration,  opens  and  closes  sessions  of  the  provincial 
council  and  sanctions  or  vetoes  the  measures  of  that  body,  and,  in 
general,  safeguards  the  interests  of  the  government  in  the  province. 

1  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  I,  170-178;  Brusa,  Italien,  in  Marquardsen's 
Handbuch,  231-238;    E.  Pessina,  Manuali  del '  dirilto  penaleitaliano  (Naples,  1916). 

2  The  present  description  takes  no  account  of  the  territory  acquired  by  Italy  as 
a  result  of  the  Great  War.  Arrangements  for  local  government  in  these  lands  are 
as  yet  (1920)  incomplete. 


538  GOVKRNMKNTS   OK    LIKOPE 

Every  province  bas  a  council  of  from  20  to  60  members, 
d  for  a  period  of  six  years  under  a  suffrage  system  practi- 
cally identical  with  that  which  operates  in  parliamentary  elec- 
tions.  One-half  of  the  membership  is  renewed  triennially.  The 
council  meets  regularly  once  each  year,  nominally  for  a  month's 
session;  but  an  extraordinary  session  may  be  called  at  any  time 
by  the  prefect,  by  the  deputation,  or  at  request  of  one-third  of 
the  councilors.  Aside  from  voting  the  provincial  budget,  the 
powers  of  the  council  are  small.  In  part,  e.g.,  in  respect  to  the 
maintenance  of  highways,  the  control  of  secondary  and  techni- 
cal education,  and  a  share  in  the  supervision  of  charity,  they 
are  obligatory ;  in  part  they  arc  merely  permissive.  A  deputa- 
tion, or  commission,  of  from  six  to  ten  persons,  elected  by  the 
council  from  its  own  membership,  represents  the  council  in  the 
intervals  between  its  sittings  and  carries  on  the  work  intrusted 
to  it.  The  prefect  is  advised  by  a  prefectural  council  of  three 
members  appointed  by  the  government,  and  he  is  further  as- 
sisted by  a  giunta  of  six  members,  of  whom  four  are  elected  by 
the  provincial  council,  and  the  others  are  drawn  from  the  pre- 
fectural council.  It  is  the  business  of  the  giunla  to  assist  the 
prefect  and  sub-prefects  in  the  supervision  of  local  administra- 
tion and  to  serve  as  a  tribunal  for  the  trial  of  cases  arising  under 
administrative  law.  The  prefect  and  the  giunta  have  large,  and 
to  a  considerable  degree  discretionary,  powers  of  control  over  the 
proceedings  of  the  council ;  and  the  prefect,  representing  as  he 
does  the  central  government  exclusively,  can  be  called  to  account 
only  by  his  superiors  at  Rome. 

Local  Government :  The  Commune.  —  As  in  France,  the 
commune  is  the  least  artificial  and  the  most  vigorous  of  the  local 
governmental  divisions.  In  191 1  there  were  8323  communes, 
besides  four  boroughs  in  Sardinia  which  were  not  included  in 
the  communal  organization.  Every  commune  has  a  council  of 
from  15  to  80  members,  according  to  its  population,  elected  for  a 
period  of  six  years,  one-half  retiring  every  three  years.  This 
council  holds  two  regular  sessions  a  Near,  although  in  the  large 
towns  it,  in  point  of  fact,  meets  much  more  frequently.  Between 
sittings  its  work  is  carried  on  by  a  giunta,  which  serves  as  a  com- 
mittee to  execute  the  resolutions  of  the  council  and  to  draft  its 
budget  and  by-laws.  The  powers  of  the  council,  which  are 
comprehensive,  include  maintenance  of  streets,  roads,  and 
markets;  provision  for  elementary  education;  arrangements  for 
the  relief  of  the  poor,  and  for  the  registration  of  births  and  de 
and  of  electors ;  establishment  of  police  regulations  and  prisons ; 


THE   GOVERNMENTAL   SYSTEM 


539 


and,  under  varying  conditions,  attention  to  a  wide  variety  of 
other  matters.  The  range  of  its  optional  activities  is  almost 
boundless.  The  council  may  establish  theaters,  found  museums, 
subsidize  public  amusements,  and,  indeed,  go  to  almost  any  length 
in  the  regulation  of  local  affairs  and  the  expenditure  of  local 
funds.1 

As  its  chief  official,  every  commune  has  a  sindaco,  i.e.,  a  syndic, 
or  mayor.  Prior  to  1896  the  syndic  was  chosen  by  the  communal 
council  from  its  own  members  if  the  commune  had  more  than 
10,000  inhabitants,  or  was  the  capital  of  a  province  or  circondaro; 
otherwise  he  was  appointed  from  among  the  members  of  the 
council  by  the  king.  In  the  great  majority  of  communes  the 
latter  was  the  procedure.  Since  1896  the  syndic  has  been  chosen 
in  all  communes  by  the  council,  for  a  term  of  three  years,  together 
with  a  secretary,  elected  in  the  first  instance  for  two,  but  after- 
wards for  periods  of  not  less  than  six,  years.  Despite  the  fact 
that  the  syndic  is  now  invariably  elected  by  the  communal 
council,  he  is  still  something  more  than  the  executive  head  of 
the  local  community.  Like  the  prefect,  he  is  considered  a 
functionary  of  the  national  government,  and,  save  under  very 
exceptional  circumstances,  he  can  be  removed  only  with  the  pre- 
fect's permission.  He  can  be  called  to  account  only  by  his 
superiors,  and  he  can  be  sued  only  with  the  permission  of  the 
crown.2 

1  On  the  extravagance  of  the  local  governing  authorities,  see  King  and  Okey, 
Italy  To-day,  267. 

2  For  brief  accounts  of  local  government  in  Italy  see  Lowell,  Governments  and 
Parties,  I,  161-170,  and  King  and  Okey,  Italy  To-day,  Chap.  xiv.  More  extended 
treatment  will  be  found  in  E.  del  Guerra,  L'Ammistraziouc  pubblica  in  Italia  (Flor- 
ence, 1893),  and  G.  Greco,  77  nuova  diritto  amministrativo  Italiano  (Naples,  1896). 
Later  developments  are  described  and  farther  changes  advocated  in  G.  Abignento, 
La  riforma  dell'  amministrazione  pubblica  in  Italia  (Bari,  1915),  and  G.  Valenti, 
"Unita  politica  e  decentramento  amministrativo,"  in  Rivisla  d'ltalia,  July,  1919. 


CHAPTER  XXX 

PARTIES    AND    POLITICS 

Quirinal '  and  Vatican.  —  One  who  would  understand  the  politi- 
cal life  of  Italy  must  from  the  outset  take  into  consideration  a 
situation  existing  in  that  country  which  has  no  analogy  else- 
where ;  other  lands  have  difficult  problems  arising  from  the  rela- 
tions of  church  and  state,  but  none  save  Italy  contains  within  its 
borders  a  separate,  jealous,  and  sovereign  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment. The  capital  of  the  Italian  kingdom  is  likewise  the 
capital  of  the  Catholic  world,  the  seat  of  a  government  which  not 
only  is  independent  of  the  government  of  the  Italian  state  but 
is  by  tradition  hostile  to  it.  This  condition  of  things  dates  from 
1870,  when  the  armed  forces  of  Victor  Emmanuel  II  crossed  the 
borders  of  the  little  papal  dominion  around  Rome,  entered  the 
city,  and  by  a  few  sharp  strokes  beat  down  all  forcible  opposition 
to  the  sovereignty  of  the  united  Italian  nation.  The  purpose 
was  not  to  drive  the  Pope  from  the  Eternal  City,  and  not  to  inter- 
fere with  the  free  exercise  of  his  spiritual  functions,  but  simply  to 
bring  into  the  new  kingdom  a  territory  that  was  felt  to  be  essen- 
tial to  its  unity,  and  to  make  possible  the  removal  of  the  seat  of 
government  to  the  one  logical  and  necessary  location,  i.e.,  Rome. 

With  a  view  to  compensating  the  head  of  the  Church  for  his 
losses  and  assuring  him  of  future  independence  and  security, 
Parliament  enacted,  early  in  1871,  a  comprehensive  Law  of  Papal 
Guarantees,  which  stands  on  the  statute  book  to  this  day.2  The 
Pope  was  to  retain  full  sovereign  rights  on  an  equality  with  the 
king,  and  his  person  was  to  be  inviolate.  He  was  to  have  per- 
manent possession  of  the  Vatican  and  Lateran  palaces,  with  all 
appurtenant  buildings,  museums,  libraries,  gardens,  and  lands 

1  The  palace  occupied  by  the  royal  family.  It  was  formerly  a  papal  residence. 
The  name  is  sometimes  used  figuratively,  as  it  is  here,  to  denote  the  civil,  secular 
power  in  Italy  as  distinguished  from  the  papal  power. 

-  An  English  version  is  printed  in  Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  II,  16-21.  The 
full  title  of  the  instrument  is  "Law  for  the  Guarantee  of  (he  Prerogatives  of  the 
Sovereign  Pontiff  and  of  the  Holy  See,  and  for  the  Relations  between  Church  and 
State." 

54o 


PARTIES  AND   POLITICS  541 

(including  the  church  of  St.  Peter's),  together  with  the  villa  of 
Castel  Gandolfo,  seventeen  miles  southeast  of  Rome,  near  Albano. 
These  properties  were  to  be  exempt  from  taxation  and  from  seizure 
for  public  purposes,  and,  except  with  papal  permission,  no  digni- 
tary or  agent  of  the  state  should,  in  his  official  capacity,  set  foot 
in  the  specified  palaces  and  grounds,  or  in  any  place  where  a  con- 
clave or  an  oecumenical  council  was  in  session.  To  offset  the 
loss  of  revenue  suffered  by  the  extinction  of  temporal  dominion, 
the  sum  of  3,225,000  lire  ($645,000)  annually  was  to  be  "  entered 
in  the  great  book  of  the  public  debt  as  a  perpetual  and  inalien- 
able income  of  the  Holy  See,"  i.e.,  as  a  yearly  subsidy  for  all  time 
from  the  national  treasury.  Finally,  the  Pope  was  to  be  immune 
from  all  interference  by  the  government  or  its  agents  with  his 
spiritual  activities.  He  might  maintain  separate  postal  and 
telegraph  offices,  transmit  sealed  packages  of  correspondence 
under  the  papal  stamp,  either  directly  or  through  the  Italian 
post,  and  send  couriers  who,  within  the  kingdom,  should  be  on 
an  equal  footing  with  emissaries  of  foreign  governments. 

Furthermore,  the  status  of  the  Church  in  general  was  so  de- 
fined as  to  approach  Cavour's  ideal  of  "  a  free  church  in  a  free 
state."  All  restrictions  upon  the  right  of  the  Catholic  clergy 
to  assemble  for  ecclesiastical  purposes  were  abolished.  With 
provisional  exceptions,  the  exequatur,  the  placet,  and  all  other 
forms  of  civil  authorization  of  spiritual  measures  were  done 
away.1  The  state  yielded  its  ancient  right  of  nominating  to 
bishoprics,  and  the  bishops  themselves  were  no  longer  required 
to  take  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  king.  In  matters  of  spiritual  dis- 
cipline, it  was  stipulated  that  there  should  be  no  appeal  to  the 
civil  courts  from  the  decisions  of  the  ecclesiastical  authorities. 
If,  however,  any  ecclesiastical  decision  or  act  contravened  a  law 
of  the  state,  subverted  public  order,  or  encroached  upon  the  rights 
of  individuals,  it  was  to  be,  ipso  facto,  of  no  effect;  and  in  these 
matters  the  state  was  made  sole  judge.  The  Church,  in  short, 
was  granted  a  very  large  measure  of  freedom  and  of  autonomy  ; 
but  at  the  same  time  it  was  not  to  be  so  far  privileged  as  to  be 
removed  beyond  the  pale  of  the  public  law.  If  its  acts  or  meas- 
ures constituted  penal  offenses,  they  were  to  be  subject  to  the 
provisions  of  the  ordinary  criminal  code.2 

1  On  the  government's  use  of  the  exequatur  since  187 1  see  King  and  Okey,  Italy 
To-day,  253. 

2  An  act  of  July  12,  1871,  so  modified  articles  268-270  of  the  Italian  penal  code 
as  to  render  ecclesiastics  liable  to  imprisonment  of  from  six  months  to  five  years, 
and  to  fines  of  from  one  thousand  to  three  thousand  lire,  for  spoken  or  written 
attacks  upon  the  state,  or  for  the  incitement  of  disorder. 


542  G0\  ERNMENTS  OF    El  ROPE 

I  'o  Vi<  tor  Emmanuel  and  his  advisers,  this  seemed  a  reasonable 
settlement.  Hut  Pope  Pius  IX  flatly  refused  to  accept  it.  He 
felt  that  he  had  been  robbed  of  his  rightful  possessions  and  of 
his  real  independence,  and,  although  unable  to  get  them  back 
by  his  own  efforts,  he  hoped,  and  for  a  good  while  expected,  to 
do  so  with  the  aid  of  some  Catholic  power,  presumably  Frame. 
To  accept  the  Law  of  Guarantees  would  be  tantamount  to  a  recog- 
nition of  the  despoiler.  Hence  the  pontiff  refused  to  take  any 
of  the  money  voted  him,  and  shut  himself  up  as  a  "  prisoner  " 
in  the  Vatican,  so  that  lie  should  not  even  so  much  as  set  foot  on 
soil  ruled  over  by  the  king.  Consequently,  what  was  intended 
as  a  bipartite  agreement  based  on  compromise  became,  rather. 
a  one-sided  modus  vivendi  steadily  adhered  to  by  the  government, 
but  disregarded  wherever  possible  by  the  papal  authorities 
Successive  appeals  to  the  Catholic  powers  having  failed  to  bring 
relii  E,  the  Vatican  ultimately  fell  back  upon  a  policy  of  obstruc- 
tion, and  in  1883  Pope  Leo  XIII  promulgated  a  decree,  Non 
Expcdit.  deelaring  it  undesirable  for  Catholics  to  vote  at  par- 
liamentary elections  or  to  hold  office  under  the  royal  govern- 
ment. Twelve  years  later  a  decree  of  the  same  Pope,  Non 
Licet,  went  a  step  farther  by  expressly  prohibiting  political  activi- 
ties formerly  pronounced  simply  "  inexpedient."  The  object 
was,  of  course,  to  embarrass  the  government  and  to  weaken  its 
popular  support.  The  effect  was  not  as  great  as  was  desired  ; 
the  decrees  were  warmly  resented  by  many  loyal  Catholics,  and 
they  were  never  generally  observed.  They  tended,  however, 
to  draw  a  line  between  patriots  and  faithful  Catholics.  "  On 
the  one  side,  while  the  bulk  of  Italians  continued  to  describe 
themselves  as  Catholics,  the  church  by  combating  nationalism 
weakened  its  hold  upon  them.  On  the  other  side,  the  conscien- 
tious abstention  of  many  good  and  honest  people  from  politics 
left  the  Italian  government  in  the  hands  of  men  indifferent,  if 
not  opposed,  to  religion,  and  weakened  the  state."  ] 

As  will  be  explained,  the  papal  ban  on  political  a<  tivity  has 
been  practically  removed,  and  the  feeling  of  the  Vatican  toward 
the  Quirinal  is  less  bitter  than  formerly.  None  the  less,  the  brea<  h 
has  never  been  healed.  There  are  no  direct  relations  between  the 
two  authorities  ;  the  Pope  refuses  to  seem  to  accept  the  protec- 
tion of  the  king  by  venturing  forth  upon  secular  soil,  although  he 
actually  lives  all  of  the  time  under  the  broad  and  general  protec- 
tion from  the  state  which  is  stipulated  in  the  Law  of  Guarantees; 
not  a  penny  of  the  annuity  has  been  accepted,  and  under  the 
1  Hayes,  Political  and  Social  History  of  Modem  Europe,  II,  372. 


PARTIES  AND  POLITICS  543 

rule  of  prescription  the  government  appropriates  to  its  own  uses 
every  five  years  the  sums  that  have  accumulated  to  the  papal 
credit ;  if  Pope  Benedict,  in  an  encyclical  letter  of  1920,  rescinded 
the  order  forbidding  Catholic  rulers  to  visit  the  king  of  Italy  in 
Rome,  he  took  occasion  in  the  same  communication  to  reiterate 
the  claims  of  the  Holy  See  to  temporal  power,  and  to  ask  that, 
once  international  peace  was  fully  established,  the  "  abnormal 
conditions  "  affecting  the  head  of  the  Church  should  be  brought  to 
an  end.  The  situation  has  warped  Italian  political  thought  and 
stunted  the  nation's  political  development ;  and  it  has  been  no 
less  injurious  to  the  Church  than  to  the  state.1 

Party  Development  to  1914.  —  The  conflict  of  Quirinal  and 
Vatican,  and  the  effort  of  the  latter  to  frustrate  the  normal  opera- 
tion of  the  government,  added  to  the  political  inexperience  of 
the  Italian  people,  the  traditions  of  localism,  and  the  innate  tend- 
encies to  factionism,  have  brought  it  about  that  in  the  kingdom 
to-day,  as  in  France,  political  parties  are  numerous,  and  their 
memberships  and  programs  are  subject  to  swift  and  bewildering 
fluctuation.  From  1870,  when  the  country's  unification  was 
completed,  to  1876  the  nation's  affairs  were  controlled  by  an  ill- 
defined  group  of  Conservatives,  composing  the  "  Right,"  whose 
strength  lay  in  Tuscany  and  the  regions  northward,  and  whose 
vigorous  and  sometimes  arbitrary  management  disclosed  a  dis- 
trust of  democracy  for  which  the  illiteracy  and  backwardness  of 
the  masses  were  not  entirely  responsible.  During  the  next  twenty 
years  the  Left  was  in  the  ascendancy.  Its  leaders  —  Depretis, 
Crispi,  and  others  —  were  men  of  the  south ;  they  favored  de- 
mocracy, and  hence  became  the  authors  of  the  electoral  law  of 
1882  ;  and,  while  the  successive  ministries  ruled  with  the  sup- 
port rather  of  an  incoherent  group  of  factions  than  of  a  party 
in  any  true  sense,  they  succeeded  in  giving  the  nation's  course  a 
decided  bent  both  toward  democracy  and  toward  a  bolder  inter- 
national policy.  After  1896  came  an  era  —  which  has  lasted 
to  the  present  day  —  in  which  the  growing  multiplicity  of  parties 

1  For  brief  discussions  of  church  and  state  in  Italy  see  King  and  Okey,  Italy 
To-day,  Chaps,  ii  and  xiii;  F.  M.  Underwood,  United  Italy,  Chaps,  xi-xii;  and  J. 
Bainville,  Italy  and  the  War  (London,  1916),  Chap.  v.  A  useful  book  is  R.  de 
Cesare,  Roma  e  lo  stato  del  papa  dal  ritorno  di  Pio  IX,  2  vols.  (Rome,  1907),  of  which 
there  is  an  abridged  translation  by  H.  Zimmern  under  the  title  The  Last  Days  of 
Papal  Rome,  1850-1S70  (Boston,  1909).  Mention  may  be  made  of  F.  Nielsen, 
History  of  the  Papacy  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  (London,  1906) ;  M.  Pernot,  La 
politique  de  Pie  X  (Paris,  1910) ;  A.  Brunialto,  Lo  stato  e  la  chiesa  in  Italia  (Turin, 
1892) ;  G.  Barzellotti,  "L'ltalia  e  il  papato,"  in  Nuova  Antologia,  March  1,  1904; 
G.  Paoli,  "Benedict  XV :  the  Significance  of  his  Election,"  in  Conlemp.  Rev.,  Oct., 
1914;   and  A.  Fawkes,  "The  Pontificate  of  Pius  X,"  in  Quar.  Rev.,  Apr.,  1917. 


544  GOVERNMENTS   01    EUROPE 

bore  Emit  in  cabinets  of  amazinglj  composite  character.  Noth- 
ing would  be  gained  by  telling  the  story  of  these  cabinets  here.1 
Certain  aspects  of  the  party  situation  as  it  has  conn  to  be 
in  our  own  time  may,  however,  be  pointed  out.  preliminary  to 
the  mention  of  two  <>r  three  important  developments  of  very 
recent  date. 

••  From  the  beginning,'.'  says  an  Italian  writer,  "  the  constitu- 
tion of  our  parties  has  been  determined,  not  at  all  by  great  his- 
torical or  political  considerations,  but  by  considerations  of  a 
purely  personal  nature,  and  this  aspect  has  been  accentuated 
more  and  more  as  we  have  progressed  in  constitutional  develop- 
ment. The  natural  conditions  surrounding  the  birth  and  growth 
of  the  new  nation  did  not  permit  the  formation  of  a  true  conserv- 
ative party  which  could  stand  in  opposition  to  a  liberal  party. 
The  liberal  party,  therefore,  occupying  the  entire  held,  divided 
into  groups,  somewhat  arbitrarily  called  Right  and  Left,  in  ac- 
cordance with  simple  distinctions  of  degrees  and  forms,  and  per- 
chance also  of  personal  disposition." ;  Hie  preponderating  facts, 
in  short,  concerning  political  parties  in  Italy  are  two:  (i)  the 
absence  —  at  all  events  until  the  organization  of  the  People's 
party  in  1919,  to  be  described  below  —  of  any  genuinely  conserva- 
tive party  such  as  is  to  be  found  in  most  continental  countries 
and  (2)  the  splitting  of  the  liberal  forces,  which  elsewhere  are 
compelled  to  cooperate  in  some  degree  against  the  conservatives, 
into  a  number  of  factional  groups,  dominated  largely  by  ambi- 
tious leaders,  and  unwilling  to  unite  save  in  occasional  coalitions 
for  momentary  advantage.  The  lack  of  an  historic  conserva- 
tive party  is  to  be  explained  largely  by  the  anomalous  situation 
which  has  existed  since  1870  in  respect  to  church  and  state.  Until 
late  years,  that  important  element,  the  clericals,  which  normally 
would  have  constituted,  as  does  its  counterpart  in  France,  the 
backbone  of  a  conservative  party,  persisted  in  the  purely  passive 
policy  of  abstention  from  national  politics.  In  the  evolution  of 
party  groupings  it  had  no  part,  and  in  Parliament  it  was  prac- 
tically without  representation.  All  active  party  groups  were 
essentially  "  liberal,"  and  rarely  did  any  one  of  them  put  for- 
ward a  program  which  distinguished  it  sharply  from  its  rivals. 
Compact  party  organization  and  formal  party  machinery, 
furthermore,   have  been  almost  non-existent;  party  discipline 

1  The  history  of  Italian  ministries  from  1861  to  191 2  is  sketched  in  the  first 
edition  of  this  book,  pp.  391-398;  Seymour  and  Frary,  How  the  World  Votes,  II, 
Chap,  xxv ;  and  Underwood,  United  Italy,  Chaps,  v-vi. 

-  Cardon,  Del  governo  nella  monorchia  costituzionale,  125. 


PARTIES   AND   POLITICS  545 

has  been  a  myth ;  men  have  crossed  from  one  party  group  to 
another  with  little  difficulty,  and  often  with  little  reason ;  and 
although  at  election  times  the  party  leaders  have  made  some 
show  of  avowing  definite  principles  and  policies,  the  actual  con- 
duct of  public  affairs  has  been  affected,  as  a  rule,  very  slightly 
by  the  victory  or  defeat  of  any  particular  party  or  group  of 
parties. 

This  colorless  aspect  of  party  politics  arises  not  only  from  lack 
of  that  fundamental  cleavage  between  Conservatism  and  Liberal- 
ism which  exists  in  Germany,  in  Belgium,  in  Holland,  and  in 
diminishing  degree  in  Great  Britain,  but  also  from  the  eclipse  of 
national  interests  and  issues  by  local  ones.  The  horizon  of  the 
voter  is  narrow ;  that  of  the  deputy  is  often  hardly  wider.  In- 
deed, it  is  local  antipathies,  traditions,  and  propensities,  far  more 
than  ideas  and  programs,  that  give  political  parties  their  charac- 
ter in  the  Chamber  and  throughout  the  country.  Until  the  Great 
War,  modern  Italy  never  experienced  a  political  or  religious 
struggle  of  the  sort  which  serves  to  break  up  local  alignments  and 
to  fix  the  traditions  of  party  lines  on  a  broadly  national  basis.  A 
characteristic  feature  of  Italian  politics,  too,  has  been  the  readi- 
ness of  the  people  to  tie  themselves  up  to  a  personality  of  com- 
manding force,  and,  in  general,  the  tendency  to  fix  the  attention 
upon  men  rather  than  upon  policies  or  measures.  Once  it  was 
Depretis  who  dominated  the  scene ;  later  it  was  Crispi ;  still 
later  it  was  Giolitti.  During  the  period  1870-1914  the  premier- 
ship was  held  by  one  or  another  of  these  three  men  precisely 
half  of  the  time.  The  position  long  occupied  by  Giolitti 
illustrates  the  point.  Giolitti  lacked  the  forceful  qualities  of 
Crispi,  but  he  personified  Italian  politics  even  more  completely. 
He  dreamt  of  leading  a  radical  democracy,  yet  when  the  prac- 
tical need  arose  he  was  ready  to  go  any  distance  in  the  path  of 
conservatism.  He  found  little  pleasure  in  problems  which  were 
remote  or  in  questions  of  large  dimension.  He  was  at  once  a 
visionary  and  an  opportunist,  a  nationalist  and  a  particularist. 
In  the  country's  politics  he  seemed  indispensable,  and  in  1914 
the  people  generally  admired  him  no  less  intensely  than  twenty 
years  earlier,  after  the  Banca  Romana  scandals,  they  hated 
him.  One  of  the  secrets  of  his  power  lay  in  the  fact  that, 
while  upon  occasion  he  had  been  a  virtual  dictator,  he  never 
clung  inordinately  to  office.  He  was  supported  by  great  num- 
bers of  men  upon  personal  grounds  entirely,  and  observers  who 
deplore  the  Italian  proneness  to  abdicate  principle  and  blindly 
follow  a  leader  can  point  to  no  more  unmistakable  symptom  of 


546  GOVERNMEN  rS   OF    EUROPE 

the  condition  they  lament  than  the  hold  acquired  by  the  Giolit- 
tist  cult.1 

The  Growth  of  Socialism.  Speaking  broadly,  Italian  parties 
have  therefore  been  little  more  than  fat  tions,  united  by  personal 
ties,  fluctuating  in  membership  and  in  leadership,  fighting  with 
such  means  as  for  the  moment  appeared  dependable  for  the 
perquisites  of  office.  Of  broadly  national  political  issues  there 
usually  have  been  none,  jusl  as  indeed  there  have  been  no  truly 
national  parties.  Of  late,  however,  there  has  been  a  certain 
development  in  the  direction  of  national  parties  and  of  stable 
party  programs.  This  has  come  about  primarily  through  the 
growth  of  the  Extreme  Left,  especially  of  the  Sorialist  wing. 
Although  the  effects  are  not  yet  such  as  to  save  the  country  from 
the  somewhat  chaotic  conditions  inherent  in  the  group  system, 
the  development  of  the  partili  populari  which  compose  the  Ex- 
treme  Left,  i.e.,  the  Republicans,  the  Radicals,  and  the  Socialists, 
is  an  interesting  political  phenomenon.  The  Republicans  have 
an  illustrious  past  and  have  rendered  the  country  great  service, 
but  they  are  now  not  numerous  or  well  organized.  Quite  im- 
potent between  1870  and  1890,  they  gained  a  good  deal  of  ground 
during  the  stormy  ministries  of  Crispi ;  but  the  rise  of  socialism 
has  weakened  them,  and  they  are  to-day  practically  confined  to 
Freemason  and  other  special  circles.  The  royal  family  is  popular 
throughout  the  country ;  monarchy,  as  it  is  organized,  in  no  way 
interferes  with  the  fullest  development  of  democracy  ;  and  there 
is  no  reason  to  expect  the  conversion  of  the  country  into  a  re- 
public, for  the  reason  that  it  already  has  the  essentials  of  repub- 
lican government.  To  employ  an  expressive  phrase  of  the  Ital- 
ians themselves,  the  Republicans  are  quattro  nod  in  un  sacco, 
"  four  nuts  rattling  in  a  bag."  The  Radicals  are  stronger,  and 
their  outlook  is  more  promising.  They  are  monarchists  who  are 
dissatisfied  with  the  government  of  the  older  parties,  yet  distrust 
socialism.     They  draw  especially  from  the  artisans  and   lower 

•The  political  parties  of  Italy  in  the  later  nineteenth  century  are  described 
briefly  in  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parti,  s,  1 1.  Chap,  iv,  and  more  fully  in  King  and 
Okey,  Italy  To-day,  Chaps,  i  hi,  and  Underwood,  United  Italy,  ("hap-,  v  vi.  .\n 
important  treatise  i-  M.  Minghetti,  /  parlili  politici  e  la  ingerenza  /<>rn  nella  giusHsia 
e  neW  amministrazione  (2d  ed.,  Bologna,  t88i  1.  Useful  articles  are  R.  Bonfadini, 
"I  partiti  parlamentari,"  in  Nuova  Antologia,  Feh.  [5,  [804,  and  A.  Torresin, 
1  Statistica  delle  elezioni  generali  politiche,"  in  La  Riforma  Soc,  Aug.  15.  1000.  A 
serviceable  biography  is  W.  J.  Stillman,  Franct  ;co  Crispi  (London,  1899),  and  an 
invaluable  repository  of  information  is  M.  Prii  hard-Agnetti  (trans.),  The  Memoirs 
of  Francesco  Crispi.  2  vols.  (New  York,  191  2),  Two  later  studies  by  [taliau  writers 
are  P.  Penciolelli,  Le  %owoernement  parlementaire  it  la  lutle  des  partis  en  Italic  (Paris, 
191 1) ;  and  S.  Sighele,  //  nazionalismo  e  i  partili  politici  (Milan,  1911). 


PARTIES  AND   POLITICS  547 

middle   class,   and   are   strongest   in  Lombardy,   Venetia,   and 
Tuscany. 

Of  far  greater  importance  are  the  Socialists.  The  remoter 
origins  of  Italian  socialism  can  be  traced  to  the  first  half  of  the 
nineteenth  century;  but  the  first  effective  propagators  of  the 
socialist  creed  south  of  the  Alps  were  refugees  from  France  after 
the  suppression  of  the  Commune  in  1871,  together  with  certain 
representatives  of  the  International.  For  a  time,  socialism  in  the 
peninsula  was  hardly  distinguishable  from  Bakuninian  anarchism. 
But  the  same  dissensions  which  had  taken  place  in  England,  Bel- 
gium, France,  and  Germany  arose  in  Italy  also,  and  a  schism, 
based  both  on  tactics  and  on  principles,  gradually  wedged  apart 
the  anarchistic  elements  led  by  Malatesta  and  Merlino  and  the 
moderate  elements  led  by  Costa,  which  accepted  the  parliamen- 
tary system,  welcomed  social  reforms,  and  up  to  a  certain  point 
favored  the  co-operation  of  the  different  classes.  The  franchise 
law  of  1882,  tripling  the  electorate,  influenced  many  anarchists 
to  accept  the  parliamentary  method  of  reform  and  to  become 
simple  socialists.  In  1885  a  socialistic  workingmen's  party, 
which  soon  numbered  forty  thousand  members,  was  organized 
at  Milan.  The  anarchists,  however,  captured  the  organization, 
and  in  the  following  year  it  was  suppressed.  In  1891  a  socialist 
fortnightly  review,  La  Critica  Sociale,  was  founded  at  Milan; 
and  in  the  same  year  was  held,  in  the  same  city,  the  first  Italian 
congress  which  was  distinctively  socialist.  This  congress,  con- 
taining representatives  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  workingmen's 
societies,  organized  a  party  that  may  be  regarded  as  the  im- 
mediate forerunner  of  the  Italian  Socialist  party  of  the  present 
day.  In  1892,  at  the  congress  of  Genoa,  came  the  final  break 
with  the  anarchists,  and  since  that  date  the  socialism  of  Italy  has 
differed  in  no  essential  regard  from  that  of  France,  Germany, 
and  other  countries. 

Between  1891  and  1893  the  new  party  acted  with  the  Right; 
but  the  policy  of  repression  pursued  by  Crispi  in  1894-95  and 
by  Rudini  and  Pelloux  in  1898-99  had  the  effect  of  gradually 
driving  the  radical  groups,  Republicans,  Radicals,  and  Socialists, 
into  alliance  ;  and  it  is  to  this  period  that  the  origins  of  the  pres- 
ent coalition  of  the  groups  of  the  Extreme  Left  are  to  be  traced. 
During  the  years  1895-1900  the  Socialists  became,  in  effect, 
the  advanced  wing  of  a  great  parliamentary  party,  with  a  definite 
program  of  political  and  social  reform.  Included  among  the 
most  essential  features  of  this  "  minimum  program  "  (dating 
from  about  1895,  and  revised  in  1900)  were  universal  suffrage 


S48  GOVERNMENTS  01    EUROPE 

for  adults  of  both  sexes,  salaries  Eor  deputies  and  for  members  of 
municipal  councils,  a  more  humane  penal  code,  the  substitution 
of  a  national  militia  for  the  standing  army,  improved  factory 
Legislation,  compulsory  insurance  against  sickness,  reform  of 
the  laws  regulating  the  relations  of  landlords  and  tenants, 
nationalization  of  railways  and  mines,  extension  of  compulsory 
education,  abolition  of  duties  on  food,  and  a  progressive  income 
tax  and  succession  duty. 

The  widespread  dissatisfaction  of  Italian-,  with  the  older  par- 
ties, the  practical  character  of  the  Socialisl  program,  and  the 
i  omparatively  able  leadership  of  the  So<  Ialisl  forces  combined  to 
give  socialism  an  extraordinary  growth  in  the  two  decades  im- 
mediately preceding  the  Great  War.  In  [895  the  party  polled 
35,000  votes  and  returned  twelve  members  to  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies.  In  1897  it  polled  108.000  votes  and  returned  sixteen 
members.  In  1904  it  polled  ,}Oi.ooo  votes  (about  one-fifth  of 
the  total  number)  and  returned  twenty-six  members.  Finally, 
in  the  elections  of  1913  there  were  no  fewer  than  376  Socialist 
candidates,  the  popular  vote  rose  to  almosl  a  million,  and  the 
party  increased  its  quota  in  the  Chamber  to  44, l  although  the 
paid  membership  was  only  fifty-eight  thousand.  The  voting 
strength  of  the  parly  has  been  drawn  mainly  from  the  railway 
employees  and  from  the  industrial  populations  of  the  cities  of 
the  north.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  in  no  European 
country  has  socialism  gained  a  larger  hold  upon  the  popular 
elements  which,  as  a  rule,  are  least  .appealed  to  by  it,  namely,  the 
agricultural  laborers.  The  proportion  of  vot<  -  <  ast  for  Socialist 
candidates  is  notably  high  in  the  Po  valley,  and  it  is  growing  in 
other  agricultural  regions,  especially  in  Tuscany  and  the  Romagna. 
It  may  be  added  that,  as  in  France,  socialism  has  attracted  to 
its  ranks  many  intellectual  and  literary  leaders,  including  the 
criminologist  Lombroso.  the  historian  Ferrero,  the  novelist  Di 
Amicis,  and  the  poet  D'Annunzio  ;  and  the  proportion  of  lawyers, 
doctors,  and  professors  is  high. 

Among  feat  ures  which  Italian  socialism  has  had  in  common  with 
the  socialism  of  France,  Germany,  and  other  lands,  is  a  conflicl 
between  wings  or  factions  of  opposing  tendencies,  and  most 
notably  between  the  moderate  evolutionary,  "  reformist  ": 
group  led  by  Filippo  Turati  and  the  uncompromising,  revolu- 
tionary group  led  by  Enrico  Ferri  and  the  syndicalist  Arturo 
Labriola.  The  question  of  "  reformism  "  vs.  revolutionism  was 
debated  as  early  as  the  congress  of  Emola  in  [902,  and  the  friction 

1  The  number  of  socialist  deputies  of  all  shades  was 


PARTIES  AND   POLITICS  549 

between  the  two  tendencies  became  especially  acute  in  1904, 
when  the  revolutionists  organized  a  general  strike,  which  failed. 
In  1^02  the  reformists  carried  the  day,  but  during  the  years 
1904-08  the  revolutionists,  largely  in  consequence  of  the  elo- 
quence and  leadership  of  Ferri,  were  in  the  ascendant.  At  the 
congress  of  Florence  in  1908  the  reformists  regained  control,  and 
with  slight  interruptions  they  dominated  the  councils  of  the  party 
until  1913.  In  that  year  the  reformist  Bissolati  withdrew  and 
organized  the  Social  Reformist  party,  which  has  remained  in 
the  field  to  the  present  day.  The  elections  of  the  same  year  gave 
the  revolutionists  a  substantial  majority  of  the  regular  Socialist 
party's  seats  in  the  Chamber.1 

Re-entrance  of  Catholics  into  Politics.  —  An  extremely  im- 
portant result  of  the  steady  progress  of  socialism  and  other  forms 
of  radicalism  has  been  a  new  attitude  on  the  part  of  the  Holy 
See  toward  the  participation  of  Catholics  in  politics.2  In  the 
elections  of  1904  many  Catholics  who  hitherto  had  abstained  from 

1  On  the  parties  of  the  Extreme  Left  the  following  may  be  consulted  :  Underwood, 
United  Italy,  Chap,  vii;  F.  S.  Nitti,  77  partita  radicate  (Turin  and  Rome,  1907); 
P.  Villari,  Scritti  sulla  questione  sociale  in  Italia  (Florence,  1902)  ;  R.  Bonghi, 
"Gli  ultimi  fatti  parlamentari,"  in  Nuova  Antol.,  Jan.  1,  1895  ;  G.  Alessio,  "Partiti 
e  programmi,"  ibid.,  Oct.  16,  1900;  G.  Louis- Jaray,  "Le  socialisme  municipal  en 
Italie,"  in  Ann.  des  Set.  Polit.,  May,  1904;  R.  Meynadier,  "Les  partis  d'extreme 
gauche  et  la  monarchic  en  Italie,"  in  Quest.  Dip!,  et  Colon.,  April  1,  1908;  F.  Masri, 
"Riformisti  e  rivoluzionari  nel  partito  socialista  italiano,"  in  Rassegna  Naz.,  X<>v. 
16,  1906,  and  April  1,  1907;  R.  Soldi,  "Le  varie  correnti  nel  partito  socialista 
italiano,"  in  Giomale  degli  Econ.,  June,  1903.  On  parliamentary  elections  see  G. 
Gidel,  "Les  elections  generates  italiennes  de  novembreigcq.,"  in  Ann.  des  Sci. 


Rev.,  Dec,  1913-  .  .      ,  , 

2  The  term  "Catholic"  as  used  in  relation  to  Italian  politics  has  a  somewhat 
variable  meaning.  In  the  sense  that  it  is  not  Protestant,  the  Italian  people  as  a 
whole  is  Catholic.  There  are  large  elements,  however  —  notably  the  Freemasons 
—  over  which  the  Church  has  no  effective  control,  and  there  are  still  larger  numbers 
who  are  loyal  to  the  Church  in  spiritual  matters  but  go  their  own  way  in  everything 
else.  Broadly,  indeed,  this  may  now  be  affirmed  of  the  nation  as  a  whole,  and  it  is 
so  asserted  by  a  recent  and  competent  writer,  who  says :  "The  Italian  people,  as 
a  whole,  are  Catholics  after  a  fashion  of  their  own.  In  the  Pontiff  or  parish  priest 
they  distinguish  between  the  ecclesiastical  dignitary  and  the  citizen.  U  hen  such  a 
man  arrays  himself  in  the  sacred  vestments  and  mounts  the  pulpit  or  goes  up  to  the 
altar  to  speak  in  God's  name,  the  Italian  bows  his  head,  bends  his  knee,  prays,  and 
believes.  .  .  .  When,  however,  the  priest  has  laid  aside  the  stole  and  cope  which 
raised  him  above  ordinary  mankind,  leaves  pulpit  and  altar,  and  becomes  once  more 
an  ordinary  man.  then  the  Italian  no  longer  considers  himself  obliged  to  believe  and 
accept  blindlv  what  the  priest  says  to  him.  He  will  talk  and  argue  with  him,  and 
if  the  two  agree,  so  much  the  better,  if  not,  so  much  the  worse  for  the  priest.  The 
Italian  people  «oes  its  own  way."  H.  Zimmern  and  A.  Agresti,  New  Italy  (New 
York,  1920),  37-38- 


550  GOVERNMENTS  01    EI  ROPE 

voting  joined  with  the  Government's  supporters  at  the  polls  in 
an  effort  to  check  the  growing  influence  of  the  radical  groups 
justifying  their  action  by  the  argument  thai  resistance  to  social- 
ism is  a  fundamental  Catholic  obligation.     Pope  Pius  X  v. 

pared  to  admit  the  force  of  the  contention,  and  in  June  of  th| 
following  year  he  issued  an  encyclical  which  made  it  the  duty  of 
Catholics  everywhere,  Italy  in<  luded,  to  share  in  the  maintenance 

of  social  order,  and  permitted,  and  even  enjoined,  that  they  should 
take  part  in  politic  al  contests  in  defense  of  social  order  whenever 
and  wherever  it  was  obviously  mena<  ed.  At  the  same  time,  such 
participation  must  be,  not  indiscriminate,  but  disciplined.  It 
must  be  tarried  on  under  the  direction  of  the  ecclesiastical  hier- 
archy, and  with  the  express  approval  of  the  Vatican.  Theoreti- 
cally, and  as  a  general  rule,  the  Non  Licet  remained.  But  where 
the  rigid  application  of  the  law  would  open  the  way  for  the 
triumph  of  the  enemies  of  society  and  of  religion  (as,  from  the 
papal  point  of  view,  socialists  invariably  are),  the  rule,  upon  re- 
quest of  the  bishop  and  sanction  by  the  Holy  See.  was  to  be 
waived.  A  corollary  of  this  new  polity  was  that,  under  certain 
circumstances,  Catholics  might  not  merely  vote  but  also  stand 
for  parliamentary  seats.  The  encyclical  prescribed  that  such 
candidacies  should  be  permitted  only  where  absolutely  necessary 
to  prevent  the  election  of  an  avowed  adversary  of  the  Church, 
only  where  there  was  a  real  chance  of  success,  and  only  with  the 
approbation  of  the  proper  hierarchical  authorities  ;  and  even  then 
the  candidate  should  seek  office  not  as  a  Catholic,  but  although 
a  Catholic.1 

l"p  to  1914,  this  partial  lifting  of  the  Non  Licet  had  two  clear 
effects.  In  the  first  place,  it  considerably  stimulated  the  political 
activities  of  the  Catholics.  Already  a  small  Catholic  party  had 
come  into  the  field,  which  was  opposed  to  socialism,  the  seculari- 
zation of  the  state,  divorce,  and  all  purely  lay  organizations,  yet 
was  not  unfriendly  to  the  Italian  government;  and  in  the  elec- 
tions of  1909  and  1913  the  number  of  Catholic  voters  and  of 
Catholic  candidates  showed  a  distinct  increase.  In  1913  the 
clerical  group  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  was  raised  to  35; 
and  it  gave  promise  of  attaining  considerable  coherence  and  in- 
fluence. In  addition  to  standing  for  the  principles  already  men- 
tioned, it  urged  social  reform,  e.g.,  factory  legislation,  working- 
men^  insurance,  cooperative  enterprises,  and  a  wider  distribu- 
tion of  land,  with  all  the  arguments,  if  not  with  all  the  vehemence, 
of  tin-  Socialist-.     A  second  result  of  the  relaxation  of  the  papal 

1  The  idea  is  expressed  in  the  phrase  cattoHci  deputati,  si,  dcpulali  caltoUci,  no. 


PARTIES  AND   POLITICS  551 

ban  was,  on  the  other  hand,  a  quickening  of  the  anti-clerical 
spirit,  and  a  perceptible  strengthening  of  the  Radical-Republican  - 
Socialist  bloc.  Indeed,  it  seemed  not  unlikely  that  by  providing 
the  Left  with  a  solidifying  issue  the  papacy  might  yet  prove  to 
have  rendered  a  service  to  the  very  elements  which  it  had  set 
out  to  destroy. 

The  restraints  upon  political  activity  on  the  part  of  good 
Catholics  were  still  farther  relaxed  in  the  period  of  the  Great  War. 
Indeed,  they  may  be  said  practically  to  have  disappeared  at  that 
time,  and  it  is  a  fair  question  whether  they  will  ever  be  revived. 
Unlike  the  Socialists,  who  kept  up  their  opposition  to  Italy's 
participation  in  the  war  even  after  her  delayed  decision  was  made, 
the  Catholics  were  unanimous  in  their  patriotism  ;  even  the  clergy 
accepted  the  situation  and  threw  its  full  influence  as  a  class  on 
the  side  of  Italian  victory.  Nor  was  the  intention  merely  to 
support  the  national  cause  while  the  fighting  was  going  on.  The 
new  era  of  national  and  international  reconstruction  seemed  to 
call  no  less  insistently  for  Catholic  thought  and  action,  and  to 
promise  even  larger  opportunity  to  contribute  to  the  shaping 
of  the  future  Italy  and  the  future  world.  Accordingly,  on  Janu- 
ary 19,  1919,  —  two  months  after  the  armistice,  and  almost  coin- 
cident with  the  convening  of  the  peace  conference  at  Paris,  - 
a  new  Catholic  party  was  proclaimed,  with  the  sanction  of  the 
Vatican,  if  indeed  the  project  did  not  emanate  from  that  quarter. 
The  manifesto  was  addressed  to  "  all  free  and  strong  men  who  at 
this  solemn  moment  feel  it  their  duty  to  work  for  the  supreme 
benefit  of  their  country  without  prejudice  or  preconception,  so 
that  united  they  may  help  to  realize  the  ideals  of  justice  and 
freedom."  Stress  was  laid  on  the  necessity  that  political  organi- 
zations everywhere  should,  while  the  representatives  of  the  vic- 
torious nations  were  working  out  the  terms  of  peace  at  Paris, 
do  everything  in  their  power  "  towards  the  reenforcement  of 
those  principles  which  will  keep  far  from  us  the  prospect  of  war, 
set  the  nations  on  a  firm  foundation,  and  make  of  social  justice  a 
real  thing."  The  pronouncement  was  thus  full  of  the  spirit  of 
the  times  —  of  the  peace  conference,  the  league  of  nations,  and 
the  "  fourteen  points." 

Upon  purely  Italian  questions  the  platform  was  unusually 
explicit.  It  demanded  decentralization  of  administration  and 
favored  a  state  which  would  carefully  respect  the  family,  the  class, 
the  commune,  personal  dignity,  and  individual  initiative.  It 
advocated  proportional  representation,  woman  suffrage,  and  an 
elective    Senate   directly   representing   the   national    academic. 


55-1  GOVERNMEN  rS    OF    EUROPE 

administrative,  and  municipal  bodies.  It  urged  reform  of  the 
judicial  system  and  of  the  methods  of  legislation.  Most  signifi- 
cant of  all.  it  made  no  mention  of  a  rev  ival  of  the  temporal  power  ; 
and  in  demanding  liberty  for  the  Church  in  rights  and  int. 
of  a  purely  spiritual  nature,  it  recognized  that  the  state  a-  such 
was  nut  at  fault,  hut  only  certain  anti-clerical  and  skeptical  or 
atheistic  organizations,  notably  the  Freemasons,  which  had  ridi- 
culed and  persecuted  loyal  Catholics  in  a  variety  of  way-. 

The  new  party-  to  which  was  given  the  name  People'-,  or 
Popular,  party  —  was  a  conglomerate  <>!'  unions,  associations, 
and  leagues,  with  conservative  tradition  here,  democratic  tenden- 
cies there,  and  a  Left  wing  differing  but  little  at  most  points  from 
the  Socialists.  None  the  less,  it  promptly  struck  root,  and  at 
the  parliamentary  election  of  November  16,  1919,  won  a  total 
of  101  seats,  which  was  exceeded  by  only  two  party  quotas  in  the 
new  Chamber.  This  was  indeed  a  notable  triumph,  consider- 
ing the  former  anti-clerical  tone  of  Parliament  and  politics.  The 
reasons  for  it  are  not  altogether  clear,  but  important  factors  un- 
doubtedly were  the  force  of  the  appeals  of  Pope  Benedict  XV 
and  other  Catholic  authorities  to  the  popular  desire  for  per- 
manent peace,  the  feeling  of  many  people  that  the  new  party 
offered  much  that  was  attractive  in  the  Socialist  platform  with- 
out certain  features  of  the  latter  to  which  they  objected,  and  the 
skill  with  which  the  Catholic  program  was  brought  into  line  with 
deeply  embedded  ideas  and  traditions,  and  especially  with  the 
latent  but  profound  aptitude  of  the  Italian  for  the  things  of  the 
spirit. 

The  new  Catholic  phalanx  thus  introduced  in  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies  in  1919  was  entirely  loyal  to  the  government  and  was 
expected  to  serve  as  a  bulwark  of  law  and  order  in  the  unsettled 
times  of  national  recovery  and  reconstruction.  As  a  naturally 
conservative  element,  it  seemed  likely  to  be  the  principal  counter- 
weight to  the  Socialists.  But  it  must  be  noted  that  the  Social- 
ists were  no  less  successful  in  1919  than  the  Catholics.  They 
raised  their  quota  in  the  Chamber  from  40  to  156,  which  became 
by  a  wide  margin  the  largest  of  the  party  groups.1  Aside  from 
the  Catholics,  they  alone  went  into  the  campaign  with  a  definite 
program,  and  they  profited  equally  with  the  Catholics  from  the 
national  war-weariness  and  the  reaction  of  the  public  mind  against 

1  The  complete  party  representation,  employing  the  party  names  in  vogue  in 
1919,  was  as  follows :  Socialists,  156;  Liberals  and  Conservatives,  1.32;  Catholics, 
101 ;  Democrats.  80;  Social  Reformer-.  16;  Republicans,  15 ;  Giolittians,  8.  The 
Social  Reformers  form  a  separate  socialist  party,  under  the  leadership  of  Bissolati. 


PARTIES   AND   POLITICS  553 

militarism.  They  won  few  scats  in  the  south  ;  not  a  single  Social- 
ist was  elected  from  Sicily.  But  they  swept  the  industrial  centers 
of  the  midlands  and  the  north.  Rarely,  however,  have  so  many 
voters  remained  away  from  the  polls.  In  Naples  only  thirty- 
five  per  cent  voted,  in  Rome  only  twenty-nine  per  cent,  through- 
out the  country  as  a  whole  hardly  fifty  per  cent.  This  suggests, 
not  only  that  the  mass  of  the  newly  enfranchised  Italians  value 
their  electoral  privileges  lightly,  but  that  the  success  of  both 
the  Catholics  and  the  Socialists  in  1919  may  be  accounted  for 
in  part  by  the  abstention  of  electors ;  and  the  testimony  of  ob- 
servers bears  out  the  conjecture  that  it  was  the  Catholic  and 
Socialist  voters  who  went  to  the  polls  most  freely,  for  the  reason 
that  their  parties  alone  were  able  to  make  a  positive  appeal  in 
behalf  of  a  definite  program.  In  the  French  elections  of  19 19  the 
Socialists,  as  has  been  pointed  out,1  lost  heavily,  not  alone  be- 
cause the  new  system  of  proportional  representation  worked 
against  them,  but  because  the  nation  was  still  living  on  the  lofty 
plane  of  patriotism  which  it  had  occupied  during  the  war  and  was 
still  actuated  by  the  spirit  of  the  union  sacree.  The  Italian 
elections,  on  the  other  hand,  took  place  when  the  people  were  dis- 
appointed and  depressed.  How  far,  therefore,  the  results  in 
either  case  were  to  be  accepted  as  indicating  the  real  balance  of 
political  opinion  and  as  marking  out  the  lines  of  future  party 
history,  no  observer,  however  competent,  could  judge  with  any 
degree  of  confidence.2 

1  See  p.  500. 

2  On  party  developments  in  Italy,  mainly  since  1914,  see  H.  Zimmern  and  A. 
Agresti,  New  Italy  (New  York,  1920),  Chaps,  ii-iii;  E.  Lemorion,  "Le  parti 
catholique  en  Italie,"  in  Rev.  Polit.  et  Pari.,  Aug.,  1913,  and  "Les  socialistesitaliens 
et  la  guerre,"  ibid.,  Mar.,  1915  ;  R.  Murri,  "Political  Aspect  of  the  Religious  Prob- 
lem in  Italy,"  in  Contemp.  Rev.,  May,  1914;  M.  Pantaleoni,  "Problemes  italiens 
d'apres  guerre,"  in  Jour,  des  Econ.,  June,  1916;  F.  Crispolti,  "II  partito  popolare 
italiano,"  in  Nnova  Antol.,  Feb.  16,  1919 ;  A.  Livingston,  "Socialist  Labor  Organiza- 
tion in  Italy,"  in  N.  Y.  Nation,  Feb.  22,  1919;  A.  Pauphilet,  "The  New  Italian 
Chamber,"'in  New  Europe,  Dec.  18,  1919;  E.  Corradini,  "The  New  Parliament  at 
Rome,"  in  Nineteenth  Cent.,  Jan.,  1920;  and  L.  Hautecour,  Vltalie  sous  le  mnustere 
Orlando  (Paris,  1920).  Italian  attitudes  and  feelings  during  the  Great  War  are 
described  in  S.  Low,  Italy  in  the  War  (London,  1916),  and  J.  Bainville,  Italy  and  the 
War  (London,  19 16). 


3-       SWITZERLAl 

CHAPTER   XXXI 

THE    CONSTITUTIONAL    SYSTEM 

Land  and  People.  —  For  hundreds  of  years  the  federal  republic 
of  Switzerland  has  been  a  fruitful  laboratory  of  theoretical  and 
practical  politics.  Here  was  first  and  most  fully  tested,  on  the  soil 
of  modern  Europe,  the  federal  plan  of  government.  Here  were 
born  the  twin  principles  of  the  popular  initiative  and  referendum. 
Here,  in  more  recent  times,  the  plural  executive  of  a  non-cabinet 
type  has  been  deliberately  set  over  against  the  single  executive  as 
employed  in  the  United  States.  Here  the  scheme  of  proportional 
representation  in  legislative  bodies  won  some  of  its  earliest  tri- 
umphs. Here,  too,  the  primary  assembly  as  an  agency  of  gov- 
ernment has  had  its  most  notable  survival  outside  of  the  towns 
of  our  own  Xew  England. 

Federalism,  direct  government,  and  proportional  representa- 
tion have  now  become  widely  familiar,  and  Switzerland's  political 
contributions  and  experiences  attract  less  attention  than  in  an 
earlier  generation.  Properly  viewed,  however,  they  still  give 
the  country  an  importance  for  the  student  of  government  quite 
out  of  proportion  to  its  size  and  population.  Xotwilhstanding 
the  liberalization  of  government  produced  in  many  lands  by  the 
late  war.  it  remains  true,  as  an  English  student  of  popular  in- 
stitutions wrote  more  than  twenty-five  years  ago,  that  "  the 
sovereignty  of  the  people,  based  upon  the  equal  political  and  civil 
rights  of  all  adult  male  citizens,  has  nowhere  been  so  fully  real- 
ized as  in  the  expanding  series  of  self-governing  areas  in  which  a 
Swi>s  citizen  exercises  his  rights  and  duties  as  a  member  of  a 
commune,  a  canton,  and  a  federal  slate  ;  nowhere  have  the  rela- 
tion^ between  these  larger  and  smaller  areas  of  democracy 
grown  up  under  conditions  of  such  careful  adjustment  and  so 
much  promise  of  stability.  Finally,  there  is  no  other  state  whose 
constitutions,  federal,  provincial,  communal,  express  such 
implicit  confidence  in  the  present  will  of  the  majority  and  admit 
such  facility  of  fundamental  changes  to  meet  new  conditions. 

554' 


THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  SYSTEM  555 

Though  there  are  one  or  two  modern  states  where  public  control 
of  industry  and  other  forms  of  socialistic  legislation  and  adminis- 
tration have  been  carried  further  than  in  Switzerland,  it  would 
probably  be  found  that  nowhere  has  substantial  liberty  and  equal- 
ity of  opportunity,  political,  industrial,  educational,  and  social, 
been  more  adequately  secured  than  to  the  citizens  in  the  more 
advanced  cantons  of  Switzerland.  For  not  only  in  political 
government  do  we  find  many  able  experiments  in  the  art  of  rec- 
onciling individual  liberty  with  rule  by  the  majority,  but  out- 
side of  politics  in  the  labor  organizations,  cooperative  societies, 
consumers'  leagues,  and  an  immense  variety  of  economic,  philan- 
thropic, educational,  and  recreative  unions,  we  have  evidence 
of  the  free  play  of  a  democratic  spirit  finding  expression  in  social 
forms."  x 

This  exceptional  political  and  social  development  is  not  a  prod- 
uct of  chance.  To  a  considerable  extent,  it  arises  from  the  physi- 
cal character  of  the  country  itself.  Switzerland  contains  only 
15,976  square  miles,  which  is  one-thirteenth  of  the  area  of  France, 
one-third  of  the  area  of  the  state  of  New  York.  Being  so  small, 
it  is  peculiarly  adapted  for  the  early  development  of  republican- 
ism. The  mountain  ranges,  furthermore,  cut  it  into  tiny  com- 
partments, accentuate  local  differences,  and  make  the  federal 
form  of  government  natural,  if  not  inevitable.  At  the  same  time, 
the  tiny  subdivisions  lend  themselves  to  political  experimenta- 
tion, and  especially  to  the  establishment  of  government  in  its 
most  simple  and  direct  forms.  Government  by  primary  as- 
sembly, for  example,  becomes  entirely  feasible  where  any  voter 
can  leave  his  home  in  the  morning,  afoot  if  he  likes,  and  arrive 
at  the  central  meeting-place  by  noon.  Finally,  the  very  soil 
and  atmosphere  of  a  rugged  country  like  Switzerland  breed  ideas 
of  liberty,  equality,  democracy  ;  witness  Greece  in  ancient  times, 
Scotland  in  modern  centuries. 

To  these  physical  conditions  making  for  separatism  and  democ- 
racy must  be  added  other  influences  arising  from  the  character 
of  the  people.  Few  populations  living  within  an  area  so  restricted 
are  more  heterogeneous.  First,  there  are  the  differences  of  race, 
reflected  in  a  general  way  in  the  statistics  of  language.  At  the 
census  of  December  1,  1910,  the  total  population  was  3,753,293. 
Of  this  number,  69  per  cent  spoke  German,  21.1  per  cent  spoke 
French,  8  per  cent  spoke  Italian,  and  approximately  one  per  cent 
spoke  a  dialect  known  as  Romansch.     German  was  the  prepon- 

1  H.  D.  Lloyd,  A  Sovereign  People,  a  Study  of  Swiss  Democracy  (New  York, 
1907),  1-2. 


556  G0\  ERNMENTS  01    EUROPE 

derating  tongue  in  fifteen  of  the  twenty-two  cantons,  occupying 
tin-  central  and  western  portions  of  the  country;  French  in  the 
five  westernmost  cantons;  and  [talian  in  the  single  southern  can- 
ton of  Ticino.  Then  there-  are  the  differences  of  religion.  In 
1 910,  56.7  per  ((.-nt  of  the  people  were  Protestants;  42.8  per  cenl 
were  Roman  Catholics;  and  .5  per  cenl  were  Jews.  Practically 
all  of  the  Italians  are  classed  as  Catholics;  but  among  the 
( Germans  and  the  French  the  lines  of  rare  and  religion  by  no  means 
coincide.  Protestants  were,  in  [910,  in  a  majority  in  twelve 
cantons  and  Catholics  in  ten.  Finally  there  are  important  eco- 
nomic cleavages.  Switzerland  is  predominantly  an  agricultural 
and  dairying  country.  But  manufacturing  industries  are  highly 
developed,  particularly  in  the  northern  and  western  cantons; 
and  the  differing  interests  of  the  agriculturists  and  the  industrial 
class  sometimes  become  important  issues  of  prat  tical  politics.  It 
is  essential  to  observe,  however,  that  both  industrial  and  agricul- 
tural conditions  are  favorable  to  democracy.  Factories  are  usu- 
ally small ;  much  manufacturing  is  carried  on  in  the  homes  of  the 
people;  capitalism  has  no  such  grasp  upon  industry  as  in  other 
countries.  Similarly,  the  land  is  owned,  not  by  great  proprie- 
tors, but  by  the  masses.  There  are  upwards  of  300,000  small 
holdings,  averaging  less  than  twenty  acres  ;  and  these  support  two 
million  people,  or  more  than  half  of  the  republic's  population. 
Political  Development  to  1815.  —  In  the  form  in  which  it 
exists  to-day,  the  Swis  -  federation  is  a  product  of  the  middle  and 
later  nineteenth  century.  Its  origins,  however,  are  to  be  traced 
to  a  far  remoter  period.  Beginning  with  the  alliance  of  the  three 
forest  cantons  of  I'ri,  Schwyz.  and  Unterwalden  in  1291,1  the 
federation  was  built  up  through  the  gradual  creation  of  new  can- 
tons,  the  splitting  of  old  ones,  the  reorganization  of  dependent 
territories,  and  the  development  of  a  crude  political  union  intended 
almost  exclusively  for  purposes  of  defense  against  a  common  toe, 
the  Habsburgs.  When,  in  1798,  the  French  Directory,  at  the 
instigation  of  Napoleon,  arrogated  to  itself  the  task  of  revolution- 
izing Switzerland,  the  federation  consisted  of  thirteen  cantons.2 
With  it  were  associated,  however,  certain  Zugewandte  Orlc,  or 
allied  districts,  of  which  some  later  became-  cantons,  and  also  a 
number  of  Gemeine  Vogteien,  or  subject  territories.  The  federa- 
tion had  never  developed  a  high  degree  of  unity,  and  at  the  close 

1  For  an  English  version  of  this  "Perpetual  1  eague,"see  J.  M.  Vincent,  Govern- 
ment in  Switzerland  (New  Vork,  1900),  285 

-  Lu/.crn  joined  ti''-  alliance  in  [332;  Zurich  in  1351  ;  Glarus  and  Zu^  in  1352; 
Bern  in  1353;  Freiburg  ami  Solothurn  in  1481  ;  Basel  and  S<.  hailhausen  in  1501; 
and  Appenzell  in  15 13. 


THE   CONSTITUTIONAL  SYSTEM  557 

of  the  eighteenth  century  it  was  a  pure  Staatenbund,  or  league  of 
substantially  autonomous  states.  Its  only  organ  of  common 
action  was  a  diet,  in  which  each  canton  had  one  vote.  This  body 
had  no  regular  time  of  meeting ;  its  members  could  act  only  upon 
instruction  from  their  own  governments,  and  there  were  no  means 
by  which  the  will  of  a  majority  could  be  enforced  upon  the  minor- 
ity. As  one  writer  has  observed,  the  central  government  of 
Switzerland  at  this  time  was  even  weaker  than  that  of  the  United 
States  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation.1  The  cantons  them- 
selves had  governments  of  widely  differing  kinds.  Six  of  the 
older  rural  divisions  —  Uri,  Schwyz,  Unterwalden,  Glarus,  Zug, 
and  Appenzell  —  were  pure  democracies  ruled  by  primary  as- 
semblies. Of  the  seven  urban  states,  three  z —  Zurich,  Basel, 
and  Schaffhausen  —  had  representative  governments  based 
upon  a  moderately  broad  franchise ;  the  other  four  —  Bern, 
Luzern,  Freiburg,  and  Solothurn  —  were  close  oligarchies.  The 
political  institutions  of  all  were,  in  large  measure,  such  as  had 
been  carried  down  from  the  Middle  Ages.2 

As  a  result  of  the  French  intervention,  the  loosely  organized 
federation  was  transformed,  almost  over  night,  into  a  centralized, 
bureaucratic  "  Helvetic  Republic,"  nominally  independent  but 
actually  tributary  to  France.  Under  the  terms  of  a  written 
constitution,  modeled  closely  on  the  French  instrument  of  the 
Year  III  (1795),  the  country  was  given  a  unitary  government 
consisting  of  a  bicameral  legislature  —  a  Grand  Council  of 
deputies  elected  indirectly  in  the  cantons  in  proportion  to  popu- 
lation and  a  Senate  of  four  members  from  each  canton  —  and 
a  plural  executive  designated,  as  in  France,  a  Directory,  and 
elected  by  the  senators  and  councilors.3     With  the  five  directors 

1  R.  C.  Brooks,  Government  and  Politics  of  Switzerland  (Yonkers,  1918),  34. 

2  The  origins  of  the  federation  are  described  briefly  in  Brooks,  Government  and 
Politics  of  Switzerland,  16-35,  and  Vincent,  Government  in  Switzerland,  3-26,  and 
more  fully  in  W.  D.  McCrackan,  Rise  of  the  Swiss  Republic  (2d  ed.,  New  York, 
iqoi).  Important  treatises  include  A.  Rilliet,  Les  origines  de  la  confederation 
Suisse  (Geneva,  1868) ;  P.  Yauchier,  Les  commencements  de  la  confederation  Suisse 
(Lausanne,  1891) ;  and  W.  Oechsli,  Die  Anfange  der  schweizerischen  Eidgcnossen- 
schaft  (Zurich,  1891).  There  is  a  French  translation  of  the  last-mentioned  excellent 
work  under  the  title  Les  origines  de  la  confederation  Suisse  (Bern,  1891).  The  origins 
of  the  Swiss  Confederation  were  described  in  a  scientific  manner  for  the  first  time  in 
the  works  of  J.  E.  Kopp :  Urkunden  zur  Gcschichtc  der  eidgenossischen  Biindc 
(Leipzig  and  Berlin,  1835),  and  Gcschichtc  der  eidgenossischen  Biindc  (Leipzig  and 
Berlin,  1845-52).  The  texts  of  all  of  the  Swiss  alliances  to  1513  are  printed  in  J. 
von  Ah,  Die  Bundesbricfe  der  at  ten  Eidgenossen  (Einsiedeln,  1891). 

3  This  constitution  was  drawn  up  in  Paris,  at  Napoleon's  suggestion,  by  a 
magistrate  from  Basel,  Peter  Ochs,  then  on  a  mission  to  the  French  government. 
Other  Swiss  representatives  were  consulted,  and  the  final  changes  were  made  by 
the  French  Directory. 


558  C.nYKRXMKXTS   OF    [-XROFE 

Acre  associated,  for  administrative  work,  four  appointed  heads 
of  departments.  For  purposes  of  local  government  the  country 
was  laid  out  in  twenty-three  distrii  ts,  called  cantons,1  hut  corre- 
sponding in  only  a  few  instances  to  the  pre-existing  divisions  of 
that  name.  Organized  on  the  model  of  the  new  French  depart- 
ments, each  had  an  elective  Legislature  and  an  appointed  prefei  i 
to  serve  as  a  cantonal  executive  and  to  look  after  the  interests 
of  the  centra]  government.  Much-needed  reforms  were  intro- 
duced throughout  the  country  at  large,  including  a  uniform  citi- 
zenship, a  common  suffrage,  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press, 
and  unity  in  the  penal  law,  the  coinage,  and  the  postal  service. 
French  control,  however,  was  resented,  and  the  new  governmental 
system  failed  to  strike  root.  Following  a  series  of  riots  and  other 
disorders,  the  constitution  of  1798  was,  on  July  2,  1802,  replaced 
by  a  new  but  similar  instrument,  drawn  up  by  an  assembly  of 
notables,  convoked  at  Bern.  The  popular  verdict  on  this  docu- 
ment was  unfavorable  by  a  majority  of  twenty  thousand.  The 
vote,  however,  was  light;  and  on  the  plea  that  abstentions  were 
tantamount  to  tacit  approval,  the  authors  of  the  instrument  put 
their  plan  into  effect.  Naturally,  dissatisfaction  was  not  allayed.2 
Napoleon  was  wise  enough  to  recognize  that  large  concessions 
would  have  to  be  made.  Hence,  calling  to  Paris  a  deputation  of 
Swiss  representatives,  he  worked  out  with  them  a  new  scheme, 
which  was  promulgated,  February  19,  1803,  under  the  name  of  the 
Act  of  Mediation.  By  the  terms  of  this  agreement,  the  country 
became  once  more  a  federation  of  self-governing  cantons,  with, 
however,  a  central  government  of  decidedly  larger  powers  than  be- 
fore 1798.3  The  right,  for  example,  to  make  war  and  to  conclude 
treaties  was  vested  exclusively  in  the  new  federal  Diet.  To  the 
thirteen  original  cantons  were  added  six  new  ones  —  Aargau, 
Thurgau,  Vaud,  Ticino,  and  the  Grisons  (St.  Gall  and  Grau- 
b iinden)  —  the  first  four  formed  from  districts  which  under  the 
old  regime  had  been  subordinate  territory,  the  last  two  having 
formerly  been  "  allied  states."  In  the  Diet  each  of  six  cantons 
(Bern,  Zurich,  Vaud,  Aargau,  St.  Gall,  and  Graubiinden)  which 
had  a  population  in  excess  of  100,000  was  given  two  votes.  All 
others  retained  but  one.  The  executive  authority  of  the  Con- 
federation was  vested  by  turns  in  the  six  cantons  of  Bern,  Frei- 
burg, Luzern,  Zurich,  Basel  and  Solothurn,  the  "  directorial  " 

1  It  was  now,  indeed,  that  the  term  first  appeared  in  official  usage. 

2  McCrackan,  Rise  of  the  Swiss  Republic,  295-312.     Cf.  L.  Marsauche,  La  con- 
federation helv&ique  (Neudhatel,  1890). 

3  It  is  in  this  instrument  that  the  Confederation  was  for  the  first  time  designated 
officially  as  "Switzerland." 


THE   CONSTITUTIONAL   SYSTEM  559 

canton  in  any  given  year  being  known  as  the  Vororl,  and  its  chief 
magistrate  as  the  Landamman,  of  the  Confederation.  The 
principle  of  centralization  was  in  large  part  abandoned ;  but  the 
recently  established  equality  of  civil  rights  was  not  molested. 
The  accession  of  the  newly  created  cantons,  containing  large 
numbers  of  people  who  spoke  French,  Italian,  and  Romansch, 
caused  the  league  henceforth  to  be  less  predominantly  German 
than  formerly.1 

The  Act  of  Mediation,  which  on  the  whole  was  not  unaccept- 
able to  the  majority  of  the  Swiss  people,  save  in  that  it  had  been 
imposed  by  a  foreign  power,  continued  in  operation  until  1813. 
During  the  decade  Switzerland  was  practically  a  ward  of  France. 
With  the  decline  of  Napoleon's  power  the  situation  was  altered, 
and  on  December  29,  1813,  fourteen  of  the  cantons,  through  their 
representatives  assembled  at  Zurich,  declared  the  instrument  to 
be  no  longer  in  effect.  Led  by  Bern,  eight  of  the  older  cantons 
determined  upon  a  revival  of  the  system  in  operation  prior  to 
1798,  involving  the  reduction  of  the  six  most  recently  created 
cantons  to  their  former  inferior  status.  Prompted  by  Tsar 
Alexander  I,  however,  the  Allies  refused  to  approve  this  program ; 
and,  after  the  Congress  of  Vienna  had  arranged  for  the  admission 
to  the  confederacy  of  the  three  allied  districts  of  Valais,  Geneva, 
and  Neuchatel,  there  was  worked  out,  by  the  Swiss  themselves, 
a  constitution  known  as  the  "  Federal  Pact,"  which  was  formally 
approved  by  the  twenty-two  cantons  at  Zurich,  August  7, 
1815.2 

This  instrument  still  farther  loosened  the  ties  that  bound  the 
federation  together;  the  cantons  recovered,  indeed,  almost  all 
of  the  independence  lost  in  1798.  A  Diet  was  again  set  up  in 
which  each  canton,  regardless  of  population,  had  one  vote.3 
Its  sessions,  like  those  of  the  cantonal  legislatures,  were  to  be 
behind  closed  doors ;  and  the  only  new  power  that  was  given  it 
was  that  of  dispatching  troops  into  any  district  threatened  with 
disorder.  It  could  declare  war  and  peace,  but  only  with  the  con- 
sent of  three-fourths  of  the  cantons.  Federal  executive  authority 
was  vested,  in  rotation,  in  the  cantonal  executives  of  Zurich, 

1  Cambridge  Modern  History,  IX,  Chap,  iv  (bibliography,  pp.  805-807).  The 
best  general  work  on  the  period  1 798-1813  is  W.  Oechsli,  Gesckichte  der  Sckweiz 
im  XIX.  Jahrhnndert  (Leipzig,  1903),  I. 

2  This  statement  needs,  however,  to  be  qualified  by  the  observation  that  the  half- 
canton  Lower  Unterwalden  approved  the  constitution  August  30,  and  only  when 
compelled  by  force  to  do  so.  , 

3  Three  of  the  cantons  —  Unterwalden,  Basel,  and  Appenzell  —  were  divided 
into  half-cantons,  each  with  a  government  of  its  own ;  but  each  had  only  half  a 
vote  in  the  Diet. 


500  GOA  ERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

Luzern,  an<l  Bern,  the  period  of  service  to  be  in  each  case  two 
years.  Practically  all  of  the  guarantees  of  common  citizenship, 
religious  toleration,  and  individual  liberty  which  the  French 
bad  introduced  were  rescinded,  and  during  the  decade  following 

1815  the  trend  in  mosl  of  the  more  important  cantons  was  not 
onlv  particularistic  but  also  distinctly  reactionary.  The  smaller 
and  poorer  ones  retained  their  demo<  ratic  institutions,  especially 
their  Lands gemeinden,  or  primary  assemblies;  but  it  was  only 
after  1830,  and  largely  under  the  stimulus  of  the  revolutionary 
movements  of  that  year,  that  the  majority  of  the  cantonal  govern 
ments  underwent  "that  regeneration  in  respect  to  the  suffrage 
and  the  status  of  the  individual  which  lay  behind  the  trans- 
forming movements  of  1S48.' 

The  Constitution  of  1848  and  the  Revision  of  1874.  -  The 
period  between  1830  and  1848  was  marked  by  not  fewer  than 
thirty  revisions  of  cantonal  constitutions,  all  in  the  direction  of 
broader  democracy.2  The  purposes  of  the  liberal  leaders,  how- 
ever, extended  beyond  the  democratization  of  the  individual 
cantons.  The  thing  at  which  they  ultimately  aimed  was  the 
establishment  of  a  closer  union,  and  therefore  of  a  stronger  nation. 
On  motion  of  the  canton  of  Thurgau,  a  committee  was  authorized 
in  1832  to  draft  a  revision  of  the  Pact.  The  resulting  instru- 
ment preserved  the  federal  character  of  the  state,  but  provided  for 
a  permanent  national  executive,  a  national  court  of  justice,  and 
centralization  of  the  customs,  postal  service,  coinage,  and  mili- 
tary instruction.  By  a  narrow  majority  this  project  was  defeated 
in  1833.  It  was  too  radical  to  be  acceptable  to  the  conservatives, 
and  not  sufficiently  so  to  please  the  advanced  liberals. 

The  obstacles  to  be  overcome  —  native  conservatism,  inter- 
cantonal  jealousy,  and  ecclesiastical  heterogeneity  —  were  very 
formidable.  More  than  once  the  Confederation  seemed  on 
the  point  of  disruption.  In  September,  1843,  seven  Catholic 
cantons,'5  emulating  an  example  repeatedly  set  by  other  groups, 
entered  into  an  alliance,  known  as  the  SonderhuncL  for  the  pur- 
pose of  defending  their  peculiar  interests,  and  especially  of  cir- 
cumventing any  reorganization  of  the  confederacy  which  should 

1  B.  Van  Muyden,  La  suisse  sons  le  pack  de  1815.  2  vols.  (Lausanne  and  Paris, 
1890-92);  A.  von  Tillier,  Geschichte  der  Eidgcnossenschafl  w&hrend  der  sogen. 
Restaur ationsepoche,  />//  1830,  ,  rc>ls.  (Bern  and  Zurich,  [848  50);  ibid.,  Ges- 
chichte der  I  I  whkrend  der  Ze'it  des  sogeheissenen  Fortschritts,  1830- 
1846,3  vols,  'hern,  1854-55).  On  the  demo  ratii  movement  in  the  cantons  sec 
Borgeaud,  Adoption  arid  Amendment  of  Constitutions,  264  -272. 

2  McCrackan,  Rise  of  the  Swiss  Republic,  325-330. 

3  Luzern,  Uri,  Schwyz,  Unterwaldcn,  Zug,  Freiburg,  and  Valais. 


THE   CONSTITUTIONAL  SYSTEM  561 

involve  the  lessening  of  Catholic  influence  and  privilege;  and, 
in  December,  1845,  this  affiliation  was  converted  into  an  armed 
league.  In  November,  1847, the  Diet,  in  session  at  Bern,  decreed 
the  dissolution  of  the  Sonderbund;  but  the  allied  cantons  re- 
fused to  obey,  and  only  after  a  nineteen-day  armed  conflict 
was  the  obstructive  league  suppressed.1 

The  war  was  worth  while,,  because  the  crisis  produced  by  it 
afforded  the  liberals  an  opportunity  to  bring  about  the  adoption 
of  a  wholly  new  constitution.  For  a  time  the  outlook  was  dark- 
ened by  the  possibility  of  foreign  intervention,  but  the  outbreak 
of  the  revolution  of  1848  at  Paris  effectually  removed  that  danger,2 
and  in  the  end  the  upheaval  through  which  Europe  was  passing 
proved  rather  favorable  than  otherwise  to  the  cause.  The  up- 
shot was  that,  through  the  agency  of  a  Diet  committee  of  four- 
teen, constituted,  in  fact,  February  17,  1848  —  one  week  prior  to 
the  overthrow  of  Louis  Philippe  —  the  nationalists  incorporated 
the  reforms  they  desired  in  a  constitutional  projet,  and  this  in- 
strument the  Diet  forthwith  revised  slightly  and  placed  before 
the  people  for  acceptance.  By  a  vote  of  15^  cantons  (with  a 
population  of  1,897,887)  to  6|  (with  a  population  of  292,371), 
the  new  constitution  was  approved. 

The  adoption  of  this  organic  law  was  a  distinct  victory  for  the 
Liberal,  or  Centralist,  party.  During  the  next  two  decades  this 
element  kept  complete  control  of  the  federal  government  and 
carried  out  many  centralizing  reforms.  A  federal  postal  system 
was  created ;  the  telegraphs  were  nationalized  ;  a  national  coinage 
was  instituted  in  1850  ;  uniform  weights  and  measures  were  estab- 
lished ;  and  a  strong  foreign  policy  was  maintained.  Finally, 
in  1872,  the  more  radical  wing  of  the  party  brought  forward  a 
new  constitution  confirming  and  extending  this  centralist  bent. 
The  first  effort  met  with  failure.3  A  new  draft,  however,  was  pre- 
pared;  and  on  April  19,  1874,  by  a  vote  of  14!  cantons  against 
7i,  it  was  adopted.  The  popular  vote  was  340,199  to  198,013. 
Amended  subsequently  upon  several  occasions,4  the  instrument 
of  1874  is  the  fundamental  law  of  the  Swiss  federation  to-day, 
although  it  is  essential  to  observe  that  it  represents  only  a  re- 

iA.  Stern,  "Zur  Geschichte  des  Sonderbundes,"  in  Historische  Zeitschrift, 
1879 ;  W.  B.  Duffield,  "The  War  of  the  Sonderbund,"  in  Eng.  Hist.  Rev.,  Oct.,  1895  ; 
and  P.  Matter,  "Le  Sonderbund,"  in  Ann.  de  I'Ecole  Libre  des  Sci.  Polit.,  Jan.  1  5, 

2  Austria,  Prussia,  and  France  were  inclined  to  intervene  on  behalf  of  the  Sonder 
bund.  Lord  Palmerston,  the  British  foreign  secretary,  exercised  a  restraining  in- 
fluence. 

3Borgeaud,  Adoption  and  Amendment  of  Constitutions,  297-299. 

4  For  the  methods  of  constitutional  amendment  see  pp.  593~594- 


§62  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

vision  of  the  constitution  of  [848.  As  a  recent  writer  has  said. 
•'  the  one  region  on  the  continenl  to  which  the  storms  ot  1848 
brought  immediate  advantage  was  Switzerland,  for  to  them  it 
owes  its  transformation  into  a  well-organized  federal  state."1 

The  texl  ^\  the  constitution  as  it  stands  to-day  is  arranged  in 
three  chapters,  subdivided  into  [23  articles.  Amendments  arc 
not  listed  at  the  vnd,  as  in  tlu  1  onstitution  of  the  United  Stat 
but  are  inserted  at  the  appropriate  pla<  es  through  the  document.' 
There  is,  however,  an  appendix  containing  a  half-dozen  articles 
of  a  temporary  character.  The  first  and  longest  chapter,  under 
the  title  "  general  provisions,"  deals  mainly  with  personal  right-. 
citizenship,  the  structure  and  powers  of  the  federation,  and  the 
status  of  the  cantons.  The  second  entitled"  federal  authorities," 
provides  for  the  structure  and  functions  of  the  executive  Inderal 
Council,  the  Federal  Court,  and  the  two  branches  of  the  Federal 
Assembly.  The  third  chapter  sets  forth  the  various  methods 
by  which  the  constitution  can  be  amended.  The  document 
runs  to  almost  twice  the  length  of  the  constitution  of  the  United 
Ltes  and  abounds  in  provisions  on  subjects  —  hunting  and 
fishing  rights,  qualifications  for  the  professions,  restraint  of  epi- 
demics, suppression  of  gambling,  and  what  not  —  that  are  com- 
monly left  to  be  covered  by  ordinary  legislation.  In  a  few  in- 
stances these  provisions  are  of  doubtful  value  or  arc  plainly  un- 
necessary. Thus  an  amendment  of  1893  forbidding  the  killing 
of  animals  "  without  benumbing  before  the  drawing  of  blood  " 
is  admittedly  an  expression  of  anti-Jewish  prejudice.^  In  the 
main,  however,  the  constitution's  seeming  diffuseness  arises  from 
the  practical  necessity,  under  a  federal  form  of  government,  of 
defining  the  spheres  and  powers  of  the  several  authorities  in  a 
good  deal  of  detail  —  a  consideration  impressed  on  Swiss  states- 
men not  only  by  the  earlier  experience  of  their  own  country  but 
by  the  well-known  difficulties  that  had  already  arisen  in  the 
United  States  from  the  brevity  of  the  federal  organic  law  on  more 
than  one  important  subject.  The  same  tendency  to  detail,  if 
not  prolixity,  appears  in  the  constitution  of  the  former  German 

*W.  Oechsli,  in  Cambridge  Minimi   History,  XI,   234.     A  brief  survey  of  the 

constitution  J  ! u  tory  of  Switzerland  from  [848  to  [874  is  contained  in  Chap,  viii 

of  the  volume  mentioned  (bibliography,  pp.  914  918).     Two  excellent  works  are 

C    nili,,   /      con  titutions  fid  la  confederation    misse;    expose  historique 

Neuchatel,    [891),  and  T.  Curti,   GeschicHU  der  Sckweiz  im   XIX.  Johrhmdert 

Neuchatel,  1902  1.  ... 

It  is  partly  on  this  account  that  the  Swiss  constitution  is  less  satisfactory  in 
the  arrangement  of  its  contents  than  is  the  American.  On  the  modes  of  amendment 
see  p.  593. 


THE   CONSTITUTIONAL   SYSTEM  563 

Empire,  although  in  that  case  certain  other  and  special  motives 
were  involved.1 

Nature  of  Federal  Government.  —  Switzerland  is  the  first 
country  that  we  have  studied  which  has  a  federal  form  of  govern- 
ment ;  and  before  proceeding  to  a  description  of  its  political  sys- 
tem it  will  be  well  to  consider  briefly  what  federal  government  is. 
It  goes  without  saying  that  in  every  state  the  powers  of  govern- 
ment are  so  numerous,  complicated,  and  onerous  that  they  can 
be  carried  out  only  by  being  intrusted  to  many  different  hands. 
Two  main  bases  of  distribution  suggest  themselves  —  territorial 
and  functional.  Distribution  is  made  territorially  when  the  state 
is  laid  out  in  one  or  more  sets  of  districts,  and  to  each  district, 
equipped  with  the  requisite  machinery,  is  assigned  the  exercise 
of  certain  powers.  It  is  made  functionally  when  legislative  pow- 
ers are  confided  to  one  authority  or  group  of  authorities,  executive 
functions  to  another,  judicial  functions  to  a  third,  and  so  on.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  both  forms  of  distribution  are  employed  in  prac- 
tically all  states. 

Obviously,  federal  government  springs  from  distribution  on  the 
territorial  basis.  But  the  precise  manner  in  which  it  arises  is 
not  so  generally  understood.  What  we  have  in  mind  when  we 
speak  of  a  territorial  distribution  of  governmental  functions  is, 
not  the  uniform  exercise  of  a  given  power,  such  as  the  collection 
of  customs  duties,  in  a  series  of  administrative  districts  by  a  set 
of  officials  belonging  to  the  central  government,  but  the  assign- 
ment of  aggregates  of  governmental  power  to  units  or  areas  of  a 
political  nature,  to  be  exercised  largely  or  wholly  at  their  dis- 
cretion (and  therefore  not  uniformly)  and  through  organs  that 
belong  to  them  rather  than  to  the  central  government.  Such 
divisions  are  the  states  and  counties  of  the  United  States,  the 
counties  and  boroughs  of  England,  the  departments  and  com- 
munes of  France,  the  cantons  of  Switzerland.  The  reasons  for 
turning  over  governmental  power  to  divisions  of  these  kinds  are 
not  difficult  to  discover.  One  purpose  is  to  relieve  the  central 
government  of  an  intolerable  burden  of  work  and  responsibility. 
But  the  main  consideration  is  that  many  of  the  tasks  of  govern- 
ment relate  exclusively  to  individual  sections  of  the  country, 
which  can  therefore  logically  be  made  to  assume  the  main  re- 

1  See  p.  620.  The  text  of  the  Swiss  constitution  will  be  found  in  Lowell,  Govern- 
ments and  Parties,  II,  405-531.  English  versions  are  printed  in  Dodd,  Modern 
Constitutions,  II,  257-290;  McCrackan,  Rise  of  the  Swiss  Republic,  373-403;  Vin- 
cent, Government  in  Switzerland,  289-332 ;  and  Old  South  Leaflets,  General  Series, 
No.  18.  A  good  collection  of  recent  documents  is  P.  Wolf,  Die  schweizerische 
Bundcsgesetzebung  (2d  ed.,  Basel,  1905-08). 


564  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

sponsibility  for  them  and  tan  see  thai  they  are  exercised  in  a<  cord- 
ance  with  variations  of  local  conditions  and  needs. 
Hie  actual  structure  of  a  governmental  system  Is  determined 

mainly  by  the  method  employed  in  making  this  territorial  dis- 
tribution of  powers.  There  are  two  ways  of  doing  it.  A  scheme 
of  distribution,  stipulating  what  the  divisional  areas  of  govern- 
ment shall  be  and  what  functions  tiny  shall  have,  may  be  laid 
down  in  the  constitution.  In  this  case  the  distribution  is  made 
by  the  political  sovereign,  and  the  resulting  governmental  agen- 
cies, central  and  local,  are  coordinate  in  the  sense  that  both 
derive  their  authority  from  dired  granl  <>1  the  sovereign  and  nei- 
ther can  encroach  upon  the  field  occupied  bj  the  other  unless  the 
sovereign  gives  its  consent.  On  the  other  hand,  the  constitution 
may  go  no  farther  than  to  create  a  single  organization,  endowed 
with  full  governmental  powers,  to  which  is  left  the  task  of  pro- 
viding for  such  territorial  distribution  as  may  be  deemed  desir- 
able. According  as  the  one  plan  or  the  other  is  followed,  the 
resulting  form  of  government  is  federal  or  unitary.  The  distinc- 
tion arises,  not  from  the  mere  fact  of  a  territorial  distribution  of 
powers,  for  there  is  such  a  distribution  in  all  modern  governments, 
nor  yet  from  the  amount  or  kinds  of  power  delegated  to  the  local 
areas,  but  from  the  authority  by  which  the  distribution  is  made. 
To  be  concrete,  the  government  of  the  United  States  is  federal. 
because  the  sovereign  people  have  provided  in  the  Constitution 
equally  for  the  central,  national  government  and  for  the  govern- 
ments of  the  principal  divisional  areas,  i.e.,  the  states;  it  is  not 
at  all  for  the  central,  federal  agencies  to  say  what  powers  or  what 
organization  the  states  shall  have.  On  the  other  hand,  the  gov- 
ernment of  France  is  unitary,  because  there  is  but  a  single  integral 
government,  with  its  seat  at  Paris,  a  government  which  has 
created  the  departments,  arrondisscments,  and  other  local  political 
and  administrative  areas  for  its  own  purposes,  and  which  is  free 
to  alter  these  subordinate  districts  in  their  organization  or  powers 
at  any  time,  or  even  to  abolish  them  altogether. 

The  relative  advantages  of  the  two  types  have  been  much  de- 
bated. The  federal  plan  offers  a  natural  compromise  between  a 
complete  surrender  of  local  autonomy,  on  the  one  hand,  and  a 
loose,  weak  confederation  on  the  other,  such  as  Switzerland  had 
unpleasant  experience  with  in  the  eighteenth  century  and  the 
United  States  in  1781-89;  and  where,  as  in  both  of  these  in- 
stances, the  establishment  of  a  true  federation  is  as  far  as  the  com- 
ponent states  can  be  induced  to  go,  the  superiority  of  a  unitary 
system    becomes   merely   an   academic   question.     Furthermore, 


THE   CONSTITUTIONAL  SYSTEM  565 

federalism,  as  Bryce  observes,  allows  experiments  in  local  legis- 
lation and  administration  which  could  not  safely  be  tried  in  a 
large  country  having  a  unitary  system  of  government.  At  the 
same  time,  it  supplies  the  best  means  of  developing  a  new  and 
vast  country  by  allowing  the  particular  localities  to  develop  their 
special  needs  in  the  way  they  think  best.1  On  the  other  hand, 
federal  government  tends  to  be  excessively  complex,  to  lack  unity, 
and  to  be  not  easily  adaptable  in  powers  and  functions  to  chang- 
ing social  and  economic  conditions.  On  the  whole,  it  is  less  in 
favor  than  formerly  ;  and  it  is  significant  that  both  South  Africa 
in  1900  and  republican  China  in  191 1  deliberately  chose  the  uni- 
tary type,  although  in  both  instances  the  conditions  were  present 
which  form  the  natural  basis  of  a  federal  system.2 

The  Nation  and  the  States.  —  The  government  of  Switzer- 
land is  a  true  example  of  the  federal  form.3  The  sovereign  is, 
as  in  the  United  States,  the  people,  or  at  all  events  the  electorate, 
considered  as  a  whole.  This  sovereign  people  has  superimposed, 
for  certain  ends,  a  national  government  upon  a  series  of  state,  or 
cantonal,  governments ;  it  has  allotted  many  functions  to  this 
national  government  and  has  left  many  others  in  the  hands  of  the 
cantonal  authorities ;  and  national  and  cantonal  governments 
alike  rest  immediately,  as  do  the  national  and  state  governments 
in  the  United  States,  upon  the  people.  In  our  own  country  there 
was  long  a  deep-seated  difference  of  opinion  as  to  whether  the 
states  were  "  sovereign" ;  the  Civil  War  resulted  quite  as  much 
from  disputes  upon  this  question  as  from  disagreement  on  the 

1  American  Commonwealth,  I,  351. 

2  For  a  fuller  presentation  of  the  nature  of  federal  government  see  Willoughby, 
Government  of  Modern  States,  Chap.  x.  Cf.  R.  G.  Gettell,  Introduction  to  Political 
Science  (Boston,  1910),  Chap,  xiv,  and  W.  W.  Willoughby,  The  Nature  of  the  State 
(New  York,  1896),  Chap.  x. 

3  The  principal  treatises  on  the  Swiss  constitutional  system  are  J.  J.  Blumer, 
Handbuch  des  schweizerischen  Bundesstaatsrechtes  (2d  ed.,  Schaffhausen,  1877- 
87) ;  J.  Schollenberger,  Bundcsverfassung  dcr  schweizerischen  Eidgenossenschaft 
(Berlin,  1905) ;  ibid.,  Das  Bundesstaatsrecht  der  Schweiz  Gcschichte  und  System 
(Berlin,  1902) ;  and  W.  Burckhardt,  Kommentar  dcr  schweizerischen  Bundcsver- 
fassung (2d  ed.,  Bern,  1914).  Two  excellent  briefer  treatises  are  N.  Droz,  Instruc- 
tion civique  (Lausanne,  1884),  and  A.  von  Orelli,  Das  Staatsrccht  dcr  schweizerischen 
Eidgenossenschaft  (Freiburg,  1885),  in  Marquardsen's  Handbuch.  The  best 
treatises  in  English  on  the  Swiss  governmental  system  are  Brooks,  Government  and 
Politics  of  Switzerland,  and  F.  Bonjour,  Real  Democracy  in  Operation  (New  York, 
1920),  although  an  older  book,  Vincent,  Government  in  Switzerland,  is  excellent. 

arlier  books  include  B.  Moses,  The  Federal  Government  of  Switzerland 
d,  1889),  and  B.  Winchester,  The  Swiss  Republic  (Philadelphia,  1891). 
1  should  be  made  of  A.  B.  Hart,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Federal 
ent  (Boston,  1891).  An  excellent  critical  bibliography  of  Swiss  constitu- 
evelopment  and  governmental  organization  is  printed  in  Brooks,  op.  cit., 


GOVERNMEN  rS   OF    EUROPE 

slavery  issue.     We  now  understand  more  clearly  that  true  sov- 
ereignty belongs  to  the  people,  and  that  it  is  only  the  right  to 
exercise  certain  powers  of  sovereignty  that  the  governmei 
our  American  nation  and  states,  or  of  any  other  political  units 

or  divisions,  can  be  regarded  as  possessing.  '  >nly  with  this  point 
in  mind  arc  we  prepared  to  understand  the  interesting  provision 
of  the  Swiss  constitution  that  "  the  cantons  arc  sovereign  so  far 
as  their  sovereignty  is  not  limited  by  the  federal  constitution; 
and.  as  such,  they  exercise  all  the  rights  which  are  not  delegated 
to  the  federal  government."1  This  mean-  -imply  that,  as  in  tin- 
United  States,  the  national  government  is  a  government  of 
enumerated,  delegated  powers,  while  the  state  governments  are 
governments  of  residual  powers,  i.e.,  governments  possessing  all 
powers  conferred  on  them  by  the  people  living  under  them  and 
not  withdrawn  or  prohibited  in  the  federal  constitution.  Neither 
nation  nor  state  is  "  sovereign  "  save  in  the  sense  that  it  is  the 
custodian  of  sovereign  powers  intrusted  to  it ;  and  in  this  sense 
both  are  sovereign.  As  has  been  pointed  out,  the  delimitation 
of  powers  in  the  Swiss  constitution,  especially  those  of  a  legis- 
lative nature,  is  far  more  minute  than  in  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States  with  the  result  that  few  serious  differences  of 
interpretation  have  arisen. 

On  the  analogy  of  the  United  States,  where  the  nation  guar- 
antees to  each  state  a  republican  form  of  government,  the  S\vi>s 
federation  guarantees  to  the  cantons  their  territory,  their 
"  sovereignty  "  (within  the  limits  fixed  by  Article  3  quoted 
above),  their  constitutions,  the  liberty  and  rights  of  their  people, 
and  the  privileges  and  powers  which  the  people  haw*  conferred 
upon  those  in  authority.  The  cantons  are  empowered,  and  indeed 
required,  to  call  upon  the  federation  for  the  protection  of  their 
constitutions,  and  it  is  stipulated  that  such  protection  shall  be 
extended  in  all  instances  where  it  can  be  shown  that  the  consti- 
tution in  question  contains  nothing  contrary  to  the  provisions 
of  the  federal  constitution,  that  it  assures  the  exercise  of  political 
rights  according  to  republican  forms,  that  it  has  been  ratified  by 
the  people,  and  that  it  can  be  amended  at  any  time  by  a  majority 
of  the  citizens.2  Under  these  terrn-^.  every  cantonal  constitution, 
before  becoming  operative,  and  every  amendment  thereto,  must 
be  approved  by  both  branches  of  the  Federal  Assembly.  When 
admitting  new  states  to  the  Union  the  American  Congress  scru- 
tinizes their  organic  laws,  and  it  may  refuse  admission  until  speci- 
fied changes  are  made.     After  a  state  is  once  in  the  Union,  how- 

1  Art.  3.      Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II,  257.  :  Arts.  5-6.     Ibid.,  258. 


THE   CONSTITUTIONAL   SYSTEM  567 

ever,  this  control  of  Congress  virtually  ceases.  The  state  may 
adopt  any  number  of  constitutional  amendments,  or  an  entirely 
new  constitution,  without  consulting  either  Congress  or  any 
other  federal  authority.  Only  in  the  case  that  Congress  should 
decide  that  a  state  no  longer  had  a  republican  form  of  government 
would  that  body  seek  to  compel  a  constitutional  change;  and 
this  it  would  do  by  refusing  to  seat  the  state's  senators  and  rep- 
resentatives. Outside  of  this,  the  only  means  by  which  the 
federal  government  can  control  the  character  and  contents  of 
the  constitution  of  a  state  already  in  the  Union  is  through  pro- 
ceedings instituted  in  the  courts.  There  are  no  courts  in  Switzer- 
land with  power  to  overrule  a  cantonal  constitutional  provision. 
But  the  federal  legislature  possesses  that  power  fully  and  contin- 
uously. 

Another  important  matter  is  the  power  of  the  federal  govern- 
ment to  deal  with  insurrection  or  other  disorders  in  the  states. 
In  the  United  States  the  president  is  authorized  to  intervene  to 
repress  domestic  disorder  only  in  the  event  that  federal  authority 
or  federal  property  is  menaced,  or  on  call  of  the  state  legislature 
or  governor.  In  Switzerland,  on  the  other  hand,  the  federal 
government  has  a  right  to  intervene  for  the  restoration  of  order 
at  any  time,  and  with  or  without  request  from  the  cantonal 
authorities.  Eleven  such  interventions  have  taken  place  since 
1848,  the  most  notable  being  in  the  Italian-speaking  canton  of 
Ticino  in  188,9-90. :  Sometimes  the  good  offices  of  federal  arbi- 
trators have  proved  sufficient,  but  on  other  occasions  the  use  of 
troops  has  been  required.  With  a  view  to  averting  civil  wars, 
the  cantons  are  forbidden  to  enter  into  alliances  or  treaties  of  a 
political  nature  among  themselves,  although  they  may  conclude 
intercantonal  conventions  upon  legislative,  administrative,  and 
judicial  subjects,  provided  such  conventions,  upon  inspection 
by  the  federal  officials,  are  found  to  contain  no  stipulations  con- 
trary to  the  federal  constitution  or  inimical  to  the  rights  of  any 
canton.  In  the  event  of  disputes  between  cantons,  the  questions 
at  issue  must  be  submitted  to  the  federal  government  for  decision, 
and  the  individual  cantons  must  refrain  from  violence,  and  even 
from  military  preparations. 

The  Division  of  Powers.  —  As  has  been  stated,  the  powers  of 
government  are  distributed  on  the  same  principle  as  in  the  United 
States  ;  that  is,  the  federal  government  has  whatever  powers  are 
expressly  delegated  to  it,  while  the  cantonal  governments  have  all 
powers  not  prohibited  to  them.     The  powers  given  exclusively  to 

1  Brooks,  Government  and  Politics  of  Switzerland,  55. 


(;<>\  I  k.vmi  \  rs  01    EUROPE 

the  federal  government  fall  into  four  main  categories,  according 
as  they  relate  to  foreign  affairs,  military  affairs,  finance,  and  pub- 
lic utilities  and  other  internal  services.  Under  certain  restric- 
tions, the  cantons  are  permitted  to  make  treaties  with  foreign 
states  concerning  border  and  police  intercourse  and  the  manage- 
ment of  public  property.1  Otherwise,  full  control  of  external  re- 
lations is  vested  in  the  national  government.  It  alone  can  send 
and  receive  diplomatic  representatives,  declare  war,  make  peace, 
and  conclude  treaties  relating  to  tariffs,  commerce,  and  most 
other  matters. 

The  Swiss  military  system  is  in  some  respects  unique.  The 
constitution  of  1848  established  a  universal  obligation  to  perform 
military  service,  but  left  military  administration  in  time  of  peace 
mainly  in  the  hands  of  the  cantons.  The  system  proved  unsatis- 
factory, and  at  the  constitutional  revision  of  1874  the  federation 
was  given  full  control  over  the  organization  of  the  army,  military 
instruction  and  equipment,  and  the  conditions  of  exemption  from 
service.  These  provisions  are  still  in  force,-  and  have  been  con- 
siderably amplified  by  a  comprehensive  military  law  of  April  12, 
1907,  and  by  other  legislation.  The  constitution  retains  an  arti- 
cle declaring  that  the  federation  has  no  right  to  maintain  a  stand- 
ing army,  and  that  no  canton  or  half-canton  may.  without  per- 
mission of  the  federal  government,  have  a  standing  force  of  more 
than  three  hundred  men.3  None  the  less,  formal  military  instruc- 
tion begins  in  the  schools  at  the  age  of  ten ;  at  the  age  of  nine- 
teen every  male  Swiss  is  examined  to  determine  his  fitness  for 
military  duty ;  and  liability  for  active  service  extends  from  the 
age  of  twenty  to  that  of  forty-eight.  The  system  is  so  adminis- 
tered, however,  that  in  peace  time  men  are  never  required  to  be 
absent  from  their  homes  longer  than  sixty-five  consecutive  days ; 
and  the  number  of  people  who  give  their  entire  time  to  the  army 
hardly  exceeds  two  or  three  hundred.  There  is  not  even,  in 
peace  times,  a  commander-in-chief.' 

The  exclusive  financial  powers  of  the  federal  government  as 
fixed  in  1848  were  the  coining  of  money  and  the  "  maintenance  of  a 
monetary  system."  To  these  were  added,  in  1801,  a  monopoly 
of  the  issue  of  bank  notes  and  other  forms  of  paper  currency.5 

1  Art.  q.     Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II,  258. 

2  Arts.  19-22.     Ibid.,  261-262. 

lit.  13.     Ibid.,  257. 

'  For  an  excellent  description  of  the  Swiss  military  system  see  Brooks,  Government 
and  Politics  of  Switzerland,  Chap.  xi.  Cf.  "The  Swiss  System  of  National  Defense," 
U.  S.  Senate  Doc.  796,  63d  Cong.,  3d.  Sess.  (191 5). 

5  Power  to  regulate  such  issues  was  conferred  in  the  revised  constitution  of  1874. 


THE    CONSTITUTIONAL  SYSTEM  569 

Finally,  as  an  outcome  of  a  strong  tendency  to  socialization  during 
the  past  quarter-century,  the  federal  government  has  acquired  a 
large  amount  of  exclusive  control  over  public  utilities  and  in- 
dustries. The  postal  service,  which  before  1848  was  wholly 
under  control  of  the  cantons,  and  from  1848  to  1874  was  carried 
on  by  the  federal  government  subject  to  an  obligation  to  pay 
annual  indemnities  to  the  cantons,  is  now  wholly  federal  and  free 
of  incumbrance.  A  law  of  1851  brought  telegraphs  under  the 
postal  administration,  and  a  resolution  of  1878  added  telephones 
to  the  growing  federal  monopoly.  Railroads,  which  from  1852 
to  1872  were  private  enterprises  under  cantonal  control,  and 
from  1872  to  1901  were  private  enterprises  under  federal  control, 
have,  since  the  last-mentioned  date,  been  nationally  owned, 
operated,  and  controlled.1  Two  monopolies  of  an  industrial 
nature  add  considerably  to  the  federation's  powers.  The  first  is 
a  monopoly  of  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  gunpowder,  established 
in  1848  with  a  view  to  assuring  the  nation  adequate  supplies  of 
this  military  necessity.  The  second  is  a  monopoly  of  the  manu- 
facture and  sale  of  distilled  liquors,  including  alcohol  for  indus- 
trial uses.  This  monopoly,  approved  by  a  referendum  of  1887, 
was  established  by  virtue  of  a  constitutional  amendment  adopted 
in  1 885.2 

General  powers  of  legislation  vested  in  the  federal  government, 
in  some  cases  exclusively  and  in  others  concurrently  with  the 
cantons,  are  too  numerous  and  complicated  to  be  discussed 
here.  They  are  far  more  extensive  than  the  legislative  powers 
of  the  United  States.  To  take  a  single  illustration,  whereas  our 
Congress  is  authorized  to  regulate  only  interstate  and  foreign 
commerce,  theJSwiss .^Federal  Assembly  can  deal  with  commerce 
of  every  kind  and  under  every  condition.  The  whole  trend  of 
constitutional  development  since  1874,  and  especially  since  1900, 
has  been  toward  a  broadening  of  the  field  of  federal  regulative 
action.  Among  amendments  of  this  character,  in  addition  to 
those  already  mentioned,  may  be  cited  that  of  July  11,  1897, 
giving  the  federation  power  to  enact  laws  concerning  traffic  in 
food  products ;  that  of  November  13,  1898,  extending  the  federal 
legislative  power  over  the  domain  of  civil  and  criminal  law ;  that 
of  July  5,  1908,  conferring  upon  the  confederation  power  to  enact 
uniform  regulations  concerning  the  arts  and  trades  (thus  bringing 

1  Nationalization  took  place  under  a  law  passed  by  the  Federal  Assembly  in 
1897  and  ratified  by  a  referendum  of  February  20,  1898.  See  Brooks,  Govcrnmoii 
and  Politics  of  Switzerland,  Chap.  ix. 

2  Art.  32  ii.     Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II,  266-267. 


570  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

substantially  the  entire  domain  of  industrial  Legislation  within 

irovince  of  the  federation);   and  thai  of  October  25,  1908, 

placing  the  utilization  of  water-power  under  the  supervision  of 

the  central  authorities. 

In  one  direction  only  is  the  power  of  the  federal  government 
more  restricted  than  in  the  Tinted  States,  i.e.,  taxation.  The 
basic  principle  of  the  fiscal  systems  of  the  two  countries  is  the 

same,  namely,  that  the  federal  government  shall  live  mainly 
from  the  proceeds  of  indirect  taxes  and  the  state  governments 
mainly  from  the  yield  of  direct  imposts.  The  American  constitu- 
tion, however,  has  from  the  first  permitted  Congress  to  lay  direct 
taxes;  and  from  time  to  time  such  imposts  have  been  levied. 
Indeed,  the  old  line  of  division  is  fast  disappearing.  The  Swiss 
constitution  originally  empowered  the  federal  government  merely 
to  lay  customs  duties  on  imports  and  exports.  Moreover,  it  was 
stipulated  that  imports  of  materials  essential  for  the  manufac- 
tures and  agriculture  of  the  country,  and  of  necessaries  of  life  in 
general,  should  be  taxed  as  low  as  possible,  and  that  export  taxes 
should  be  kept  at  a  minimum.  The  proceeds  of  such  taxes  — 
together  with  the  income  from  public  property,  the  profits  of  the 
postal  and  telegraph  services,  the  yield  of  the  powder  monopoly, 
and  half  of  the  receipts  from  the  tax  on  military  exemptions 
levied  by  the  cantons  —  were  expected  to  cover  the  federation's 
annual  expenditures;  if  they  failed  to  do  so,  the  federation  was 
authorized  to  levy  upon  the  cantons  "  in  proportion  to  their 
wealth  and  taxable  resources."  x  Due  mainly  to  the  adoption  of 
a  protectionist  policy,  the  customs  receipts  rose,  between  1880 
and  1910,  from  seventeen  to  eighty  million  francs;  and  the 
federation  has  never  levied  upon  the  cantons.  Necessity  of 
doing  so  was  averted  during  the  Great  War,  however,  only  by 
heroic  measures.  One  such  measure  was  a  federal  tax  on  in- 
comes and  property,  authorized  by  a  constitutional  amendment 
of  191 5,  to  be  laid  and  collected  one  time  only.  Another  was  an 
amendment  of  1917  conferring  on  the  federation  power,  unlimited 
as  to  time,  to  levy  a  stamp  tax  on  securities  and  commercial  paper 
of  many  kinds,  with  the  proviso  that  one-fifth  of  the  proceeds 
should  be  paid  to  the  canton  - 

The  powers  of  the  cantonal  governments,  being  residual,  are 
broad,  undefined,  and  subject  to  constant  change.  Such  descrip- 
tion of  them  as  can  be  undertaken  belongs  logically  in  another 

1  Art.  42.     Dock],  Modern  Constitutions,  II,  209. 

2  Brooks,  Government  and  Politics  of  Switzerland,  Chap,  viii ;  Vincent,  Govern-, 
merit  in  Switzerland,  Chap.  xix. 


THE   CONSTITUTIONAL  SYSTEM  571 

chapter.1  They  are,  of  course,  not  so  extensive  as  under  earlier 
constitutions ;  and  the  trend  of  constitutional  development  brings 
them  within  steadily  narrowing  limits.  One  farther  aspect 
only  of  the  canton's  position  needs  to  be  mentioned  here,  namely, 
the  large  share  which  the  cantonal  government  takes  in  the  exe- 
cution of  federal  law.  In  the  United  States  the  federal  govern- 
ment enforces  its  laws  almost  entirely  through  its  own  officials ; 
it  could  continue  to  function  almost  normally  if  the  governments 
of  the  states  were  to  be  suddenly  blotted  out.  In  Switzerland, 
as  was  also  true  in  Imperial  Germany,  the  situation  is  far  other- 
wise. The  Swiss  federal  government  has  indeed  its  own  ma- 
chinery for  several  important  branches  of  administration,  e.g., 
customs,  posts,  telegraphs,  telephones,  the  gunpowder  monopoly. 
But  in  other  branches  it  depends  very  largely  upon  the  coopera- 
tion of  the  cantonal  authorities,  working  under  a  certain  amount 
of  federal  supervision.  This  is  true  of  the  administration  of 
railways,  water-power,  weights  and  measures,  education,  military 
exemption,  and  even  the  federal  bank.  One  reason  for  following 
this  plan  is  that  it  is  economical ;  the  costs  entailed  by  a  dual 
mechanism  of  administration  is  one  of  the  main  objections  to 
the  federal  form  of  government.  An  even  weightier  reason  is, 
however,  that  in  many  fields  of  governmental  action  the  reluctant 
cantons  have  been  induced  to  yield  legislative  control  to  the  cen- 
tral government  only  by  being  permitted  to  exercise  immediate 
control  over  the  enforcement  of  the  resulting  laws. 

Citizenship  and  the  Protection  of  Individual  Rights.  —  A 
question  that  is  likely  to  lead  to  some  confusion  under  a  federal 
form  of  government  is  the  basis  and  nature  of  citizenship.  The 
constitution  of  the  United  States  as  put  into  operation  in  1789 
made  use  of  the  term  "  citizen,"  but  nowhere  defined  it.  It 
spoke  of  "  citizens  of  the  United  States  "  and  also  of  "  citizens  of 
the  several  states,"  from  which  might  readily  be  inferred  that 
citizenship  was  dual,  i.e.,  both  national  and  state.  Down  to  the 
Civil  War,  the  states'  rights  school  held  that  there  were  thus 
two  kinds  of  citizenship ;  and  in  the  Dred  Scott  decision  (1856) 
the  Supreme  Court  ruled  that  it  did  not  follow  that  because  a 
person  had  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  a  citizen  of  a  state, 
he  must  be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  The  Fourteenth 
Amendment  (1868),  however,  reversed  this  doctrine.  "  All  per- 
sons born  or  naturalized  in  the  United  States,"  it  says,  "  and  sub- 
ject to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are  citizens  of  the  United  States 
and  of  the  states  wherein  they  reside."     Technically,  it  may  be 

1  See  p.  575. 


572  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

regarded  that  there  is  still  a  national  citizenship  and  a  state 
citizenship.  But  the  two  art-  inseparable,  and  the  distinction  is 
o\  no  practical  importance.  Fundamentally,  citizenship  is  na 
tional:  any  citizen  of  the  United  States. who  takes  up  his  resi- 
dence in  a  given  state  becomes  a  citizen  of  that  state;  no  state 
can  either  bestow  citizenship  or  withhold  it. 

The  Imperial  German  constitution  of  1  <sy  i  provided  that  there 
should  be  "  a  common  citizenship  for  all  Germany,"  and  that  the 
citizens  of  every  state  should  be  treated  "  in  every  other  state 
as  natives."1  It  was  reasonably  plain  that  there  were  two  citi- 
zenships, Imperial  and  state,  and  also  that  c  itizenship  in  the  Em- 
pire was  determined  exclusively  by  citizenship  in  one  of  the  indi- 
vidual states.  A  law  of  1879  cleared  up  all  doubt  on  the  point. 
The  situation  in  Imperial  Germany  was  therefore  the  reverse  of 
that  in  the  United  States :  in  the  one  country  a  person  became  a 
national  citizen  by  virtue  of  being  a  state  citizen ;  in  the  other, 
he  becomes  a  state  citizen  by  virtue  of  being  a  national  citizen. 

On  this  subject  the  Swiss  constitution,  too,  is  somewhat 
ambiguous.  "  Every  citizen  of  a  canton,"  it  says,  "  is  a  Swiss 
citizen.  As  such  he  may  participate,  in  the  place  where  he  is 
domiciled,  in  all  federal  elections  and  popular  votes,  after  having 
duly  proved  his  qualification  as  a  voter."  :  This  clearly  means 
that  citizenship  is  fundamentally  cantonal  —  that,  as  in  Ger- 
many, a  person  gains  national  citizenship  through  state  citizen- 
ship. In  the  United  States,  as  has  just  been  noted,  the  process  is 
the  opposite.  It  is  true  that  the  Swiss  constitution  also  provides 
that  "  federal  legislation  shall  fix  the  conditions  upon  which 
foreigners  may  be  naturalized."  But  in  point  of  fact  this  has 
not  been  done.  Rather,  what  happens  is  that  the  cantonal  con- 
stitutions simply  pass  the  matter  one  step  farther  on  by  provid- 
ing that  every  citizen  of  a  commune  is  a  citizen  of  a  canton.3 
The  individual  commune  thus  becomes  a  law  unto  itself  in  the 
matter,  with  the  result  of  an  enormous  variation  of  practice  from 
locality  to  locality.  Some  communes  charge  high  fees  and  in 
other  ways  put  naturalization  beyond  the  reach  of  all  but  very 
few  of  their  alien  residents ;  others  set  up  practically  no  restric- 
tions. Undoubtedly  it  would  be  better  for  the  federal  govern- 
ment to  avail  itself  of  its  power  to  establish  uniform  regulations. ' 

The  Swiss  constitution  contains  no  formal  bill  of  rights.     None 

1  Art.  3.     Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I,  326. 

2  Art.  43.     Ibid.,  II,  269-270. 

3  Brooks,  Government  and  Politics  of  Switzerland,  344. 

4  W.  Martin,  "Les  etran^ers  en  suissc,"  Rev.  Polil.  et  Pari..  Nov.  10,  1915. 


THE   CONSTITUTIONAL  SYSTEM  573 

the  less,  the  liberties  of  the  individual  are  fully  protected.  Not 
fewer  than  twenty  articles  scattered  throughout  the  document 
deal  with  the  subject.  First  of  all,  there  is  the  general  provision 
that  no  canton  shall  expel  from  its  territory  one  of  its  own  citi- 
zens, or  deprive  him  of  his  rights,  whether  acquired  by  birth  or 
by  settlement.  In  the  second  place,  the  cantons  are  required  to 
treat  Swiss  citizens  of  other  states  precisely  as  they  treat  their 
own  citizens  in  all  matters  of  law  and  judicial  procedure.  Fur- 
thermore, many  guarantees  are  expressly  laid  down,  in  terms 
equally  binding  upon  the  federal  and  state  governments.  Chief 
among  these  are :  (1)  equality  before  the  law,  (2)  right  to  settle 
anywhere  in  Swiss  territory,  (3)  right  of  petition,  (4)  liberty  to 
form  associations,  provided  they  are  not  illegal  or  dangerous  to  the 
state,  (5)  freedom  of  the  press,  (6)  inviolable  secrecy  of  letters 
and  telegrams,  and  (7)  exemption  from  liability  to  imprisonment 
for  debt.  Finally,  the  prevalence  of  ecclesiastical  dissensions  and 
wars  in  times  past,  as  well  as  the  religious  divergences  of  the 
present  day,  led  the  makers  of  the  constitution  to  deal  in  an  ex- 
ceptionally explicit  manner  with  rights  and  privileges  pertaining 
to  religion.  Complete  freedom  of  conscience  and  belief  is  guar- 
anteed. No  person  may  be  compelled  to  become  a  member  of 
a  religious  society,  to  receive  religious  instruction,  to  perform  any 
religious  act,  or  to  incur  penalty  of  any  sort  by  reason  of  his 
religious  opinions.  No  person  may  be  required  to  pay  taxes 
whose  proceeds  are  specifically  appropriated  to  the  expenses  of 
a  religious  body  to  which  he  does  not  belong. 


CHAPTER   XXXTT 

GOVERNMENT  IN   THE   CANTONS 

General  Features.  —  In  the  main,  the  national  government  of 
Switzerland  has  been  evolved  from  political  principles,  methods, 

and  organs  prevailing  in  the  individual  cantons.  From  this  it 
follows  that  an  understanding  of  the  mechanism  and  workings 
of  the  federation  is  conditioned  upon  an  acquaintance  with  the 
form  and  character  of  cantonal  political  organization.1  Any- 
thing, however,  in  the  nature  of  a  detailed  description  which  will 
apply  to  the  governmental  systems  of  all  of  the  cantons  is  quite 
impossible.  There  are  twenty-two  cantons,  of  which  three 
(Unterwalden,  Basel,  and  Appenzell)  are  split  into  half-cantons ; 
so  that  there  are,  in  all,  twenty-five  distinct  political  units. 
Although  included  within  a  country  which  is  less  than  half  as 
large  as  Ireland,  these  political  divisions  are  remarkably  dis- 
similar —  far  more  so  than  the  decidedly  larger  states  spread 
over  a  vastly  broader  area  in  the  United  States.  In  size  they 
range  from  Graubimden,  with  2773  square  miles,  to  the  half- 
canton  of  Urban  Basel,  with  14  square  miles.  The  most  popu- 
lous at  the  census  of  10 10  was  Bern,  with  642,744  people,  and 
the  least  populous  was  Lower  Unterwalden,  with  13,796.  Some, 
as  Glarus  and  the  Grisons,  are  almost  entirely  rural ;  others,  as 
Zurich  and  Thurgau,  include  both  urban  centers  and  extensive 
rural  districts ;  still  others,  as  Geneva  and  Urban  Basel,  are  hardly 
more  than  city  states.  As  has  been  pointed  out,  German  was, 
in  igio,  the  preponderating  language  in  fifteen  cantons,  French 
in  five,  and  Italian  in  one;  Protestants  were  in  a  majority  in 
twelve  cantons.  Catholics  in  ten.  To  these  differences  must  be 
added  others  of  a  political  nature.  Every  canton  has  its  own 
constitution ;  and  the  federal  government  is  bound  to  guarantee 
these  several  instruments  regardless  of  their  contents,  provide.  1 

1  The  principal  works  on  the  governments  of  the  cantons  are  J.  S(  Imlknberger, 
Grundriss  der  Stoats  uud  VerwaUungsrechts  der  schweizeriscken  Kantohe,  3  vols. 
fZiirii  I  o  .  and   I.  Dubs,  Das  bjjenttiche  Recht  da-  sch  n   I'id- 

nschaft  (Zurich,  1877-78),  I.    Brief  accounts  will  he  found  in  Vincent,  Goy- 
rland,  Chaps,  i  rii,  and  Brooks,  Government  and  Politics  of  Swit- 
zerland, Chaps,  xiv-xvii. 

574 


GOVERNMENT  IN  THE   CANTONS  575 

only  that  they  do  not  contravene  the  federal  constitution,  that 
they  establish  a  republican  form  of  government,  and  that  they 
have  been  ratified  by  the  people  and  can  be  amended  upon  request 
of  a  majority.  The  cantonal  constitutions  are  modified  easily 
and  frequently,  and,  on  the  whole,  they  tend  to  become  more 
rather  than  less  alike.  They  still  show,  however,  a  high  degree 
of  diversity. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  that  by  the  terms  of  the  federal  con- 
stitution the  cantons  "  exercise  all  the  rights  which  are  not  dele- 
gated to  the  national  government."  ]  Notwithstanding  the 
centralizing  tendencies  of  the  past  two  decades,  this  still  means 
an  extensive  range  of  power.  Under  a  certain  amount  of  federal 
supervision,  the  cantons  provide,  maintain,  and  administer  a 
common-school  system.  They  regulate  the  relations  of  church 
and  state.  They  control  the  conditions  under  which  business 
and  trade  are  carried  on.  They  amplify  and  extend  the  federal 
legislation  on  child  labor,  workmen's  compensation,  and  related 
subjects.  They  construct  highways,  subsidize  and  build  rail- 
roads, and  charter  banks.  They  erect  and  maintain  hospitals, 
insane  asylums,  sanitariums,  and  penitentaries.  They  control 
the  liquor  traffic  and  legislate  on  poor  relief  and  public  health. 
They  advance  the  interests  of  agriculture  by  general  legislation 
and  by  subsidizing  special  projects  for  rural  betterment.  They 
exercise  broad  powers  of  taxation.  They  maintain  police  sys- 
tems, and  administer  justice  through  courts  which  they  establish 
and  judges  whom  they  appoint.  They  control  the  naturaliza- 
tion of  aliens,  make  "  concordats  "  among  themselves  upon 
legislative,  administrative,  and  judicial  subjects,  and  frame 
agreements  with  neighboring  states  on  border  and  police  inter- 
course. Finally,  they  bear  a  large  share  in  the  administration 
of  national,  as  distinguished  from  cantonal,  law.2  Much  of 
their  regulative  power  is  now  merely  supplementary  to  the 
powers  of  the  federal  government.  It  is  only  fair  to  recognize, 
however,  that  in  most  branches  of  social  and  economic  legisla- 
tion the  cantons  blazed  the  way,  and  that  the  present  power  of 
the  federal  government  has  only  later  been  acquired,  with  a 
view,  usually,  to  greater  uniformity  of  practice  throughout  the 
country. 

The  Landsgemeinde  Cantons.  —  Even  the  most  casual  survey 
of  the  diverse  governmental  systems  of  the  twenty-five  cantons 

1  Art.  3.     Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II,  257. 

2  See  p.  571.  For  a  more  detailed  account  of  cantonal  functions  see  Brooks, 
Government  and  Politics  of  Switzerland,  Chap.  xv. 


576  GOVERNMEN  rS  01     EUR0P1 

and  half-cantons  will  reveal  a  Logical  basis  of  classification  in  the 
role  which  the  people  themselves  play  in  the  management  <>f 

public  affairs.  First,  there  arc  two  whole  cantons  and  lour  half- 
cantons  in  which  the  electorate,  assembled  in  .1  Landsgemeinde, 
or  primary   assembly,   makes   laws,   levies   taxes,   appropriates 

money,  and  eleets  officers.  Second,  there  are  ten  cantons  and 
one  half-canton  in  which,  while  the  ele<  torate  is  never  brought 
together  in  an  assembly,  some  or  all  measures  enacted  by  the 
representative  legislative  body  have  to  be  submitted  to  a  refer- 
endum before  they  can  take  effect.  Third,  there  are  six  cantons 
and  one  half-canton  in  which  measures  are  required  to  be  so 
submitted  only  upon  request  of  a  given  pen  entage  of  the  voters. 
finally,  there  is  one  canton  —  Freiburg  which,  having  no 
provision  for  the  referendum  in  any  form,  has  the  only  purely 
representative  system  of  government  in  the  country. 

The  origins  of  the  Landsgemeinde  are  not  entirely  clear,  but 
the  institution  seems  to  be  an  outgrowth  of  the  Hofgerickt,  or 
manorial  court,  of  feudal  times.1  It  is  known  that  rights  of  self- 
government  were  exercised  through  the  agency  of  a  Lands- 
gemeinde  in  Uri  shortly  before  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury, and  that  a  Landsgemeinde  enacted  important  legislation  in 
Schwyz  in  1294,  only  three  years  after  the  formation  of  the 
Perpetual  League.  With  the  exception  of  the  period  of  the 
Helvetic  Republic,  Landsgemeinden  have  existed  continuously 
in  Uri  and  Unterwalden  since  1309,  in  (ilarus  since  1387,  and  in 
Appenzell  since  1403.  In  the  seventeenth  century  there  were 
eleven  Landsgemeinden  in  the  country.  In  the  early  nineteenth 
century  there  were  eight.  In  1848,  however,  Schwyz  and  Zug 
gave  up  the  system,  and  since  that  date  it  has  been  confined  to 
six  political  divisions  —  the  cantons  of  Uri  and  Glarus  and  the 
half-cantons  of  Upper  Unterwalden,  Lower  Unterwalden,  Appen- 
zell Interior,  and  Appenzell  Exterior.  In  these  it  remains,  to 
all  appearances,  strongly  entrenched.     Those  cantons  that  have 

1  It  was  once  the  fashion  to  represent  the  Landsgemeinde  as  a  dire  t  descendant 
of  the  primitive  (Icrmanic  popular  assembly.  Fur  the  classic  presentation  of  this 
view  see  E.  A.  Freeman,  Growth  of  the  English  Constitution  (4th  cd..  London,  1884), 
chap.  i.    That  there  was  any  such  historical  connection  is,  ho  rj  doubtful. 

The  principal  treatise  on  the  Landsgemeinde  cantons  is  II.  Ryffel,  Vie  sch 

smeinden  (Zurich,  1(1041.  The  Landsgemeinden  arc  admirably  de- 
scribed in  E.  Osenbriigger,  Culturhistorisch  Bilder  wus  der  Schweiz  (SchafThausen, 
1867-76  .  and.  E.  Rambert,  "Les  Landsgemeinden  de  la  Suisse,"  in  Etudes  hislor- 
(Lausanne,  1889).  For  briefer  accounts,  in  English,  see  Brooks, 
Government  and  Parties  of  Switzerland,  Chap,  xvii;  Vincent,  Government  in  Switzer- 
land, Chap,  iii;  Lloyd,  A  Sovereign  People,  Chap,  iv;  Duploige,  Referendum  in 
Switzerland,  3-26;  and  Bonjour.  Rml  Democracy  in  Operation,  ("hap.  iii. 


GOVERNMENT   IN  THE   CANTONS  577 

abandoned  the  Landsgemeinde  did  so  mainly  because  their  extent 
made  it  inconvenient  for  the  voters  to  come  together  at  any  one 
place,  and  because  their  population  became  such  that  the  gather- 
ing was  apt  to  be  too  large  for  the  intelligent  transaction  of 
business.  The  divisions  that  retain  the  system  are  small.  The 
area  of  the  two  Appenzells  is  162  square  miles;  of  Glarus,  267; 
of  the  two  Unterwaldens,  295;  and  of  Uri,  415.  The  greatest 
dimension  of  any  one  of  the  districts  is  not  above  thirty -five  miles, 
and  the  distance  to  be  covered  by  the  citizen  in  attending  his 
Landsgemeinde  rarely  exceeds  ten  miles.  The  institution's  sur- 
vival is  not,  however,  a  mere  matter  of  area  or  numbers ;  Uri  is 
larger  than  nine,  and  Glarus  and  Upper  Unterwalden  are  larger 
than  five,  of  the  commonwealths  with  representative  institutions.1 

Nominally,  the  Landsgemeinde  is  an  assembly  composed  of  all 
male  citizens  of  the  canton  who  have  attained  the  voting  age.2 
Actually,  of  course,  it  is  a  gathering  of  those  who  are  able  and 
disposed  to  be  present.  The  constitutions  of  all  of  the  six  divi- 
sions make  attendance  a  duty  of  every  qualified  person,  and  the 
Appenzells  impose  small  fines  for  non-attendance  unless  a  good 
excuse  can  be  given.  As  would  be  expected,  the  actual  attend- 
ance varies  greatly.  In  Appenzell  Interior  it  seems  to  average 
as  high  as  seventy-seven  per  cent ;  in  Uri,  it  runs  as  low  as  thirty- 
six  per  cent.  The  assembly  has  one  regular  session  a  year,  com- 
monly on  the  last  Sunday  in  April  or  the  first  in  May;  but 
extraordinary  sessions  may  be  called.  The  meeting  is  set  for  a 
centrally  located  point  —  usually  the  principal  town  of  the 
canton  —  and  regularly  takes  place  out  of  doors,  perhaps  in  an 
open  space  in  the  town,  perhaps  in  a  near-by  meadow  where 
shade  and  water  are  available.  With  the  men  come,  as  a  rule, 
the  women  and  children ;  and  the  occasion  takes  on  the  character 
of  a  holiday  of  picturesque,  even  if  solemn  and  ceremonious, 
observance. 

One  of  the  duties  of  the  yearly  meeting  is  to  elect  an  execu- 
tive council  of  five  or  more  members,  including  a  chairman  or 
president  known  as  the  Landamman.  There  is  also  an  advisory 
body,  known  as  the  Landrat,  the  Kantonsrat,  or  the  Grosser-rat, 
and  composed  of  the  members  of  the  executive  council,  together 
with  certain  persons  popularly  chosen  to  represent  the  com- 
munes or  other  local  districts.     When  the  Landsgemeinde  meets, 

1  Brooks,  Government  and  Politics  of  Switzerland,  382. 

2  Eighteen  in  Lower  Unterwalden,  twenty  elsewhere.  The  number  of  persons 
qualified  to  participate  ranged  in  1900,  from  2961  in  Appenzell  Interior  to  12,694  in 
Appenzell  Exterior.     Ryffel,  Die  schweizerischen  Landsgemeindcn,  278. 


578  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

the  Landamman  takes  the  chair;  and  its  principal  business  is  to 
hear  and  act  upon  proposals  which  the  Landrat  submits.  These 
proposals  may  be  initiated  by  the  Landrat  itself,  or  they  may 
originate  in  petition  5  or  requests  laid  before  that  body  by  private 
citizens  or  by  groups  of  citizens.  In  all  of  the  six  common- 
wealths excepl  Appenzel]  Exterior  a  single  voter  may  thus 
initiate  an  ordinary  law;  then'.  65  signatures  arc  required.  In 
two,  i.e.,  Glarus  and  Appenzel!  Interior,  any  qualified  voter  can 
also  initiate  a  constitutional  amendment  ;  elsewhere,  the  number 
required  varies  from  fifty  to  five  hundred.  All  proposals  must 
be  made  in  writing,  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  L>mdral  to  pass  upon 
them  before  the  annual  meeting  and  to  be  prepared  to  recom- 
mend their  acceptance,  amendment,  or  rejection.  Only  in  Uri 
and  Glarus  may  amendments  and  additional  measures  be  offered 
"  from  the  ring,''  i.e.,  at  the  meeting  of  the  Landsgemeinde 
itself.  Measures  submitted  to  the  assembly  are  passed  or  re- 
jected by  a  majority  vote;  and,  unless  a  vote  by  ballot  is  de- 
manded, a  simple  show  of  hands  suffices.  In  Appenzel!  Exterior, 
the  largest  of  the  districts,  there  is  no  privilege  of  debate,  save 
upon  elections ;  but  elsewhere  free  discussion  prevails.  The 
functions  of  the  Landsgemeinde  vary  from  canton  to  canton, 
but  they  are  in  all  cases  comprehensive.  The  assembly  is  the 
sovereign  body  of  the  canton;  as  such,  it  can  do  anything  that 
lies  within  the  competence  of  the  canton  itself.  It  makes  and 
revises  the  constitution,  enacts  laws,  levies  taxes,  makes  appro- 
priations, grants  public  privileges,  creates  offices,  fixes  salaries, 
and  elects  the  executive  and  judicial  officers  who  carry  on 
the  work  of  government  in  the  canton  throughout  the  year. 

The  Landsgemeinde  canton  is,  thus,  a  pure  democracy.  The 
closest  analogies  to  it  are  certain  of  the  city  states  of  ancient 
Greece  in  which  the  governing  body  (e.g.,  the  Athenian  ccclcsia) 
was  a  popular  assembly,  and  the  towns  of  our  own  Xew  England, 
in  which  the  fundamental  powers  of  government  were,  and  in 
some  cases  still  are,  exercised  by  the  electorate  gathered  in 
"  town  meeting."  There  is  undeniable  attractiveness  about 
this  form  of  government,  and  it  has  made  a  strong  sentimental 
appeal.  Many  have  declared  it  the  ideal  political  organization. 
None  the  less,  it  has  inherent  and  serious  limitations.  The 
area  covered  must  be  very  small,  the  population  not  numerous, 
interests  reasonably  harmonious,  governmental  functions  rela- 
tively simple,  the  people  of  a  high  order  of  political  capacity. 
There  is,  too,  the  theoretical  objection  that  the  actual  conduct 
of  governmental  affairs  is  in  the  hands  of  a  body  endowed  with 


GOVERNMENT  IN  THE  CANTONS  579 

practically  unlimited  power,  with  a  resulting  danger  of  tyranny 
by  the  majority.  In  the  cantons  in  which  it  survives  the  Lands- 
gemeinde  seems  to  work  well,  and  there  is  no  prospect  of  its 
abandonment.1  The  institution,  however,  prevails  less  than 
half  as  widely  as  two  hundred  years  ago,  and  on  the  whole 
Swiss  experience  bears  out  the  conclusion  of  most  political 
scientists  that  pure  democracy  is  workable  only  in  local  govern- 
ment, and  that  even  there  it  tends  ever  more  strongly  to  give 
way  to  the  representative  or  mixed  democratic-representative 
form.2 

Cantonal  Legislatures :  the  Grand  Council.  —  All  cantons 
except  those  of  the  Landsgemeinde  type  have  a  unicameral  legis- 
lature, known  as  the  Grand  Conseil,  the  Grossrat,  or  the  Gran 
Consiglio.  Members  of  this  body  are  elected  by  direct  vote  of 
the  male  citizens  who  have  attained  the  age  of  twenty.  In  Zug 
there  is  one  representative  for  every  350  inhabitants;  in  Schaff- 
hausen,  one  for  "fejvery  500.  In  Zurich  and  St.  Gall,  on  the 
other  hand,  there  4s  one  for  every  1500,  and  in  Bern,  one  for 
every  3000.  From  this  generous  allotment  it  comes  about  that 
the  councils  are  of  considerable  size.  Few  have  under m  hundred 
members;  some  have  upwards  of  two  hundred;  Ziiricft  has  223. 
The  term  varies  from  one  to  six  years,  but  is  usualw  three  or 
four.  Most  of  the  councils  meet  twice  a  year ;  but  in  some 
cantons  sessions  are  more  frequent.  Subject  to  tire  operation 
of  the  referendum  and  the  initiative,  these  bodies  'perform  the 
usual  work  of  legislatures;  where  the  compulsory  referendum 
exists,  their  actions  are  in  all  cases  provisional,  but  where  the 
referendum  does  not  exist,  or  is  optional,  their  decisions  are 
final  and  authoritative.  "  In  deliberateness  and  sound  judg- 
ment," says  a  leading  student  of  Swiss  institutions,  "  and  in  the 
quality  of  their  discussions,  the  Grand  Councils  take  high  rank, 
several  of  them  comparing  favorably  with  the  two-national  houses 
themselves.  To  a  foreign  observer  the  lengthy/and  systematic 
reports  of  the  proceedings  of  cantonal  legislatures  in  Swiss  news- 
papers are  particularly  impressive  as  indicating  the  extent  to 
which  their  deliberations  are  .followed  by  the  public.  With 
bodies  of  this  character  the  value  of  a  second  house  for  the  pur- 
pose of  avoiding  hasty  action  is  not  likely  to  be  great.  More- 
over, if  restraining  action  of  this  sort  should  become  necessary, 

1  Where,  however  —  as  at  present  in  Appenzell  Exterior  ■ —  debate  is  no  longer 
possible,  the  essential  object  of  the  meeting  is  lost,  and  it  would  seem  that  the  people 
might  as  well  be  permitted  to  cast  their  votes  in  polling-booths  nearer  home. 

2  For  further  discussion  of  the  merits  of  the  democratic  and  representative 
systems  see  Willoughby,  Government  of  Modern  States,  Chap.  v. 


58o  GOVERNMEN  rS  01    El  ROPE 

the  people  themselves  could  provide  it  by  means  of  the  ref- 
erendum." ' 

Throughout  the  nineteenth  century  the  cantonal  legislatures 
were  storm-centers  of  controversy  because  of  the  notorious 
inequities  arising  from  the  election  of  members  by  simple  plu- 
rality. Many  time.-,  it  happened  that  the  party  that  polled  the 
largest  aggregate  number  of  votes  in  a  canton  obtained  only  a 
small  number  of  seats.  Shortly  after  i860  reformers  began 
advocating  as  a  remedy  the  adoption  of  some  plan  of  propor- 
tional representation.  No  results,  however,  were  attained  for 
thirty  years.  Then,  election  disorders  in  Ticino  in  1889-90 
which  made  federal  intervention  necessary  forced  the  issue ; 
and  in  1891,  on  suggestion  of  the  Federal  Council  itself,  this 
Ttalian-speaking  canton  revised  its  constitution  and  adopted 
the  proportional  principle.  In  the  same  year  Neuchatel  took 
similar  action,  and  thereafter  the  example  was  widely  followed. 
Geneva  adopted  the  plan  in  1892,  Zug  in  1894,  Solothurn  in  1895, 
Urban  Basel  in  1905,  Schwyz  in  1906,  Luzern  in  1909,  St.  Gal] 
in  1911,  and  Zurich  in  1917.  Nine  cantons  and  one  half-canton, 
therefore,  at  present  elect  the  members  of  their  legislature 
under  the  proportional  system ;  besides,  four  of  these,  and  two 
more  that  do  not  employ  it  in  legislative  elections,  have  made 
the  system  either  mandatory  or  optional  in  communal  elections, 
and  the  plan  has  been  adopted  by  Bern  and  one  or  two  other 
leading  municipalities.  It  is  computed  that  the  proportional 
system,  in  one  form  or  another,  reached  rather  more  than  half 
of  the  people  of  the  entire  country  even  before  it  won  its  greatest 
triumph  in  1918,  in  being  adopted  for  use  in  the  election  of 
members  of  the  National  Council,  i.e.,  the  lower  branch  of  the 
national  legislature.'2  The  form  commonly  employed  is  a  modi- 
fication of  the  "  list  system  "  devised  by  Victor  d'Hondt  of  the 
University  of  Ghent,  and  used  to-day  in  Belgium  and  in  France.'5 
Each  election  district  chooses  several  representatives ;  and  the 
elector  is  entitled  to  cast  as  many  vote>  a-  there  are  seats  to  be 
filled,  with  the  option  (which  the  Belgian  and  French  voter  does 
not  have)  of  concentrating  his  votes  upon  a  single  candidate. 
The  whole  number  of  votes  cast  in  the  district  is  divided  by  the 
number  of  seats  to  be  filled  plus  one.  This  supplies  the  "  elec- 
toral quotient  ";  and  each  party  li^t  is  awarded  seats  equal  to 
the  number  of  times  that  this  quotient  (strictly,  the  whole  num- 
ber nearest  it  if  it  be  not  itself  a  whole  number)  is  contained  in 

1  Brooks,  Government  and  Politics  of  Switzerland,  .314-315. 

2  See  p.  588.  3  See  pp.  42S-427- 


GOVERNMENT   IN  THE   CANTONS  581 

the  total  number  of  votes  cast  for  the  candidates  on  the  list. 
Experience  with  this  system  has  been  very  satisfactory,  and  elec- 
tion disorders  have  practically  ceased.  All  elements  have  the 
assurance  that,  after  they  have  attained  a  reasonable  amount 
of  importance,  such  strength  as  they  can  build  up  among 
the  electorate  will  be  duly  reflected  in  the  make-up  of  the 
legislature.1 

The  Referendum  and  the  Initiative.  —  The  most  interesting 
and  characteristic  political  devices  of  Switzerland  —  the  fea- 
tures of  the  governmental  system  that  have  attracted  most 
attention  from  outside  observers  —  are  the  referendum  and  the 
initiative ;  and  it  is  within  the  bounds  of  truth  to  say  that  wher- 
ever, as  in  many  of  our  American  states,  these  instrumentalities 
of  popular  government  have  been  discussed  or  adopted,  the 
Swiss  example  has  been  an  important,  if  not  the  weightiest,  factor 
in  the  decisions  reached.  The  beginnings  of  the  referendum 
in  Switzerland  are  at  least  as  remote  as  the  sixteenth  century. 
The  principle  was  applied  first  of  all  in  the  complicated  govern- 
ments of  two  territories  —  the  Grisons  and  the  Valais  —  which 
have  since  become  cantons,  but  which  at  the  time  mentioned 
were  only  districts  affiliated  with  the  Confederation.  In  the 
later  sixteenth  century  there  were  traces  of  the  principle  in  Bern 
and  in  Zurich.  In  truth,  the  political  arrangements  of  the 
early  Confederation  itself  were  based  upon  a  procedure  which  at 
all  events  closely  resembled  the  referendum.  Delegates  sent  by 
the  cantons  to  the  Diet  were  commissioned  only  ad  audiendum 
et  referendum;  that  is,  they  were  authorized,  not  to  agree  finally 
to  proposals,  but  simply  to  hear  them  and  to  refer  them  to  the 
cantonal  governments  for  ultimate  decision. 

In  its  present  form,  however,  the  Swiss  referendum  originated 
in  the  canton  of  St.  Gall  in  1830.  It  is  a  nineteenth  century 
creation,  and  may  justly  be  considered  a  product  of  the  political 
philosophy  of  Rousseau  and  other  liberals,  who  taught  that  laws 
ought  to  be  made,  not  by  representatives,  but  by  the  people 
directly.2  The  essential  features  of  it  are :  (1)  a  legislature, 
which  enacts  measures  in  a  tentative  form,  (2)  an  arrangement 

1  For  an  account  of  the  introduction  of  proportional  representation  in  the  canton 
of  Ticino  see  J.  Galland,  La  democratic  lessinoise  et  la  representation  proportionnelle 
(Grenoble,  1909),  and  L.  Aureglia,  Evolution  du  droit  public  du  canton  Tessin  dans 
le  sens  democratique  (Paris,  1916).  For  brief  general  discussion  see  Brooks,  Govern- 
ment and  Politics  of  Switzerland,  Chap,  xvi,  and  Vincent,  Government  in  Switzerland , 
Chap.  iv.  The  principal  treatise  is  E.  Kloti,  Die  Proportionwahl  in  der  Schweiz: 
Geschichte,  Darstellung,  und  Kritik  (Bern,  1901). 

2  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  II,  243. 


582  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

by  which  such  measures  shall,  or  may,  be  submitted  to  the  elec- 
torate, and  (3)  a  vote  by  the  electorate  confirming  <>r  rejecting 
the  Legislature's  proposal.  Obviously,  the  referendum  as  thus 
denned  is  the  equivalent  of  an  absolute  veto  in  the  hands  of  the 
executive,  with  only  the  important  difference  that  the  power  is 
wielded,  not  by  a  president,  governor,  or  Landammon,  bul  by 
the  people  themselves.  It  is  doubtless  on  account  of  the  wide- 
spread use  of  the  referendum  that  the  veto  power  as  wielded  by 
an  executive  officer  or  board  does  not  exist  in  Switzerland. 

The  principle  can,  of  course,  he  utilized  in  connection  with 
public  action;  of  every  conceivable  character.  In  Switzerland 
it  is  brought  to  bear  upon  two  main  kinds  of  enactment  :  I  i )  con- 
stitutions and  constitutional  amendments,  and  (2)  ordinary 
laws.  As  applied  to  constitutional  instruments,  the  referendum 
is  in  use  to-day  in  every  one  of  the  non-Lands gemeinde  cantons.  In 
the  latter  it  would  be  superfluous,  for  there  the  people  act  directly 
and  in  the  first  instance  upon  all  measures.  The  referendum 
upon  constitutional  proposals  is  no  longer  peculiarly  Swi>s.  It 
has  long  been  employed  in  the  United  States.  It  is  in  use  in 
Australia.  There  have  been  important  instances  of  its  use  in 
France  and  other  non-English-speaking  countries.  As  applied 
to  ordinary  laws,  the  referendum,  however,  is  distinctly  Swiss, 
not  only  in  origin  and  in  spirit,  but  in  the  sense  that  it  is  nowhere 
in  regular  use  outside  of  that  country  save  in  certain  of  the 
American  states.  Instituted  in  part  to  offset  the  evils  of  a  defec- 
tive system  of  representation  and  in  part  as  a  means  of  com- 
promise between  pure  democracy  and  pure  representative  govern- 
ment, the  referendum  for  ordinary  laws  exists  in  every  non- 
Landsgemeinde  canton  to-day  except  Freiburg.  In  eleven 
cantons  it  is  "compulsory";  that  is,  every  law  passed  by  the 
cantonal  legislature  must,  before  taking  effect,  be  submitted  to  a 
popular  vote.  In  seven  cantons  the  referendum  is  "  facultative," 
or  optional;  that  is,  a  law  must  be  referred  only  if  demand  is 
made  by  a  specified  number  of  voters.  In  Urban  Basel  the 
number  necessary  to  make  a  referendum  petition  effective  is  one 
thousand,  or  about  four  per  cent  of  the  total  electorate.  In 
St.  Gall  it  is  four  thousand,  or  seven  per  cent.  Elsewhere 
the  proportion  runs  to  twelve  or  fifteen  percent.  The  proportion 
of  voters  sufficient  to  reject  a  measure  also  varies.  In  some 
cases  a  majority  of  all  enfranchised  citizens  is  required,  in  others 
only  a  majority  of  those  actually  voting.  A  petition  asking  for 
a  referendum  must,  in  order  to  have  effect,  be  presented  to  the 
executive  council  of  the  canton  within  a  specified  period  —  usu- 


GOVERNMENT  IN  THE  CANTONS  583 

ally  thirty  days  —  after  the  passage  of  the  measure  upon  which 
it  is  proposed  that  a  vote  be  taken. 

In  practice,  the  referendum  imposes  a  considerable  task  upon 
the  electorate,  especially  in  the  eleven  cantons  in  which  all  laws, 
as  well  as  constitutional  amendments,  have  to  be  submitted. 
The  yearly  output  of  a  cantonal  legislature  is,  however,  far  less 
voluminous  than  that  of  an  American  state  legislature.  "  In 
nearly  all  cases  it  barely  fills  a  small  pamphlet  of  a  few  score 
pages."  In  Zurich,  where  the  compulsory  system  prevails,  and 
where  the  number  of  measures  submitted  reaches  its  maximum, 
only  eighty-one  acts  were  submitted  in  the  fifteen  years  from 
1893  to  1908.  Of  these,  sixty-five  were  approved  and  sixteen 
were  rejected.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  resolutions  and  other 
more  or  less  incidental  actions  are  usually  not  required  to  be 
submitted.  The  popular  vote  is  no  mere  matter  of  form.  In 
several  cantons  the  proportion  of  measures  rejected  exceeds 
fifty  per  cent,  and  in  a  few  cases  it  reaches  sixty  or  sixty-five 
per  cent.  Furthermore,  the  trend  is  toward  increasing  rather 
than  diminishing,  the  use  of  the  system ;  within  quite  recent 
years  two  cantons  have  gone  over  from  the  optional  to  the  com- 
pulsory form. 

The  complement  of  the  referendum  is  the  initiative.  Through 
the  exercise  of  the  one  the  people  may  prevent  the  taking  effect 
of  a  law  or  a  constitutional  amendment  to  which  they  object. 
Through  the  exercise  of  the  other  they  may  not  merely  bring 
desired  measures  to  the  attention  of  the  legislature;  they  may 
secure  the  enactment  of  such  measures  despite  the  indifference 
or  opposition  of  the  legislative  body.  In  current  political  dis- 
cussion, and  in  their  actual  operation,  the  two  devices  are  likely 
to  be  closely  associated.  They  are,  however,  quite  distinct, 
as  is  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  the  earliest  adoptions  of  the 
initiative  in  Switzerland  occurred  in  cantons  (Vaud  in  1845  and 
Aargau  in  1852)  in  which  as  yet  the  referendum  did  not  exist. 
The  right  of  popular  initiative  now  barely  falls  short  of  being 
universal.  Constitutional  amendments  may  be  thus  brought 
forward  in  every  canton,  ordinary  laws  in  every  one  except 
Freiburg.  In  most  cases  the  number  of  signers  necessary  for 
an  initiative  petition  is  the  same  as  is  required  for  a  referendum 
petition ;  and  any  measure  proposed  by  the  requisite  number 
of  voters  must  be  taken  under  consideration  by  the  legislature 
within  a  specified  period.  If  the  legislature  desires  to  prepare 
a  counter-project  to  be  submitted  to  the  voters  along  with  the 
popularly  initiated  proposition,  it  may  do  so.     But  the  original 


G0VERNM1  NTS  01     El  ROPE 

proposal  must,  in  any  case,  go  before  the  people,  accompanied 
by  the  legislature's  opinion  upon  it  ;  an<l  their  verdict  is  decisive. 

The  use  made  of  tin-  initiative  in  the  (anion-  has  been  decid- 
edly conservative.  "  The  most  notable  fa<  t  about  Swiss  experi- 
ence with  the  initiative,"  says  a  leading  authority,  writing  in 
[913,  "  is  the  small  amount  of  Legislation  it  has  produced.  Even 
the  attempts  to  use  it  have  not  been  very  frequent.  The  total 
output  of  federal  legislation  from  that  sourer  in  a  score  of  years 
has  been  two  measures,  or  one  in  ten  years.  In  the  cantons  the 
result  has  been  smaller  still.  In  .  .  .  [eighteen  or  twenty] 
years  only  fifteen  measures  haw  been  enacted  in  this  way  by  all 
the  eighteen  cantons  that  possess  the  procedure,  or  an  average 
of  less  than  one  measure  per  canton  in  twenty  years;  while  in 
Bern,  the  most  prolific  of  them  all,  the  average  is  only  one 
measure  in  live  years.  The  Swiss  people  certainly  do  not  appear 
to  crave  any  considerable  amount  of  legislation  which  then- 
representatives  are  unwilling  to  enact.  This  is  the  more  strik- 
ing because  in  strong  contrast  with  the  experience  of  the  Ameri- 
can states,  where  the  initiative  has  been  used  more  freely  than 
the  referendum."  '  The  proportion  of  popularly  initiated 
measures  which  fail  of  adoption  is,  however,  large.  Thus  in 
nineteen  years  Aargau  adopted  three  such  measures  and  rejected 
three;  in  a  similar  period  Thurgau  and  St.  Gall  adopted  one 
and  rejected  two  ;  in  fifteen  years  Zurich  adopted  one  and  rejected 
eleven. 

Administrative  and  Judicial  Machinery.  —  Executive  au- 
thority in  each  canton  is  vested  in  a  board  or  commission,  usu- 
ally of  five  or  seven  members,  and  variously  designated  as  the 
Administrative  Council  {Regierungsrat) ,  the  Small  Council 
{Kleinrat),  or  the  Council  of  Slate  (Conseil  d'lttat).  The  term 
of  members  varies  from  one  to  five  years.  Formerly  the  coun- 
cilors were  elected  by  the  legislature,  but  that  method  persists 
only  in  Freiburg  and  Valais;  elsewhere  they  are  chosen  by  the 

1  Lowell,  Public  Opinion  and  Popular  Government  (New  York,  191 3),  202-203. 
For  a  brief  description  of  the  cantonal  referendum  and  initiative  sec  Vincent, 
Govern  moil  in  Swit  erland,  Chap.  vi.  Excellent  tables  showing  the  actual  use  of 
the  two  devices  from  1893  to  1910  are  printed  in  Lowell's  volume,  pp.  311-367, 
and  the  subjeel  is  differently  presented  in  T.  Curti,  Resultak  ies  schweizerischen 
Referendums  (2d  ed.,  Bern,  ion).  The  besl  treatises  on  the  referendum,  cantonal 
and  federal,  are  S.  Duploige,  Lereferendum  en  Suisse  (Brussels,  1892),  of  which  there 
is  an  English  translation,  by  C.  P.  Trevelyan,  under  the  title  The  Referendum  in 

■tzerland  (London,  1 808),  and  T.  Curti,  Le  referendum;  histoire  de  la  legislation 
populiiirr  en  S  is,   1905).    Two  valuable  treatises  on  the  initiative  are  E. 

Klaus,  Frageder  Volksiniiiativ  (Zurich,  1.906),  and  A.  Keller.  Das  VolksinitiaHvrecht 
niieh  den  schweizerischen  Kantonsverfassungen  (Zurich,  r88g 


GOVERNMENT   IN  THE  CANTONS  585 

people.  To  be  singled  out  among  them  is  the  Landamman,  or 
president,  who  is  the  official  head  of  the  government  and  the 
representative  of  the  canton  on  ceremonial  occasions,  although 
otherwise  hardly  to  be  distinguished  from  his  colleagues.  The 
council  as  a  whole  sees  to  the  execution  of  the  laws,  maintains 
public  order,  drafts  bills  at  the  request  of  the  legislative  branch, 
supervises  the  communal  governments,  and,  in  general,  safe- 
guards the  interests  of  the  canton.  For  purposes  of  adminis- 
trative work,  the  individual  members  are  assigned  to  depart- 
ments, such  as  finance,  education,  justice,  police,  sanitation, 
trade,  industry,  agriculture,  and  charity.  Although  nowadays 
the  executive  council  is  chosen  in  all  cases  except  two  by  the 
people,  rather  than  by  the  legislature,  the  relations  which  it 
sustains  with  the  latter  are  substantially  the  same  as  those 
sustained  by  the  Federal  Council  with  the  Federal  Assembly ; 
that  is,  the  executive  body  is,  for  all  practical  purposes,  a  com- 
mittee charged  with  carrying  out  the  laws  made  by  the  legis- 
lative branch  and  executing  whatever  orders  it  may  give.  Coun- 
cilors may  attend  sittings  of  the  legislature  and  speak,  but  not 
vote. 

For  purposes  of  local  administration  all  cantons  except  the 
smallest  ones  are  divided  into  districts  (Bezirke  or  Amtsbezirke) , 
in  each  of  which  is  a  Bezirksamman,  or  prefect.  This  official, 
whether  chosen  by  the  executive  council,  by  the  legislature,  or 
even  by  the  people,  is  in  every  sense  a  representative  of  the 
cantonal  government.  Sometimes  he  is  assisted  by  a  Bezirks- 
rat,  or  district  council ;  frequently  he  is  not.  In  Schwyz  there 
is  a  Bezirksgemeinde,  or  popular  assembly,  in  each  of  the  six 
districts,  but  this  is  wholly  exceptional. 

The  smallest  governmental  unit  is  the  commune  (municipalite 
or  Einwohnergemeinde),  first  established  in  its  present  form 
under  the  Helvetic  Republic  in  1798-1802.  Legally,  each  com- 
mune consists  of  all  male  Swiss  citizens  of  age  who  have  been 
resident  within  the  communal  boundaries  for  a  specified  period, 
usually  three  months.  Some  are  cities  of  considerable  size,  as 
Zurich  with  over  200,000  people.  Others  are  rural  areas  with 
populations  of  a  few  hundred,  or  even  as  low  as  fifty  or  seventy- 
five.  In  all,  there  are  3,164.  The  principal  organ  of  govern- 
ment is  usually  a  town  meeting,  which  enacts  ordinances,  fixes 
tax  rates,  makes  appropriations,  and  elects  the  communal 
officers ;  although  where  the  population  is  large,  especially  in  the 
cities,  a  legislative  council  (Stadtrat)  is  usually  elected  by  the 
people  for  the  discharge  of  most  of  these  functions.     Adminis- 


586  GOVERNMEN  rs  < 'I     II  ROPE 

tration  is  vested  in  an  executive  council  {Gemeinderat) ,  of  five 
or  more  members,  elected  either  by  the  Legislative  councilor 
by  the  people,  and  presided  over  by  a  president  or  mayor  (Gemeiti- 
deprastdent).  In  smaller  communes  this  executive  council  works 
collectively,  but  in  larger  ones  the  members  arc  individually 
tied  to  the  several  branches  of  administration.  Subordinate 
communal  officials  usually  at  least  a  treasurer,  a  clerk,  and  a 
justice  of  the  peace  —  are  chosen  either  by  the  executive  council 
or  by  the  popular  assembly.  With  rarely  an  exception,  com- 
munal government  is  of  a  high  order  of  eflu  ien<  y. 

Each  canton  has  its  own  judicial  system.  Judges  are  elected 
either  by  the  people  or  by  the  legislature.  The  hierarchy  of 
civil  tribunals  is  composed  of  1 1  )  the  justice  of  the  peace  in  each 
commune  —  frequently  called  the  VermitUer,  or  "mediator," 
because  it  is  his  duty  to  try  to  settle  by  mediation  every  case 
brought  before  him;  (2)  the  Bezirksgericht,  or  district  court, 
consisting  of  five  to  seven  popularly  chosen  judges,  and  (3)  the 
KiUitonsgcricht,  or  cantonal  court,  consisting  of  seven  to  thirteen 
judges,  usually  elected  by  the  legislature.  Cases  may  be  ap- 
pealed from  the  district  court  to  a  special  division  of  the  cantonal 
court  organized  as  a  court  of  cassation.  All  of  these  tribunals 
must  apply  the  law  as  they  find  it ;  they  have  no  power  to  declare 
legislation  unconstitutional.  There  is  a  separate  hierarchy  of 
courts  for  the  trial  of  criminal  cases;  and  here  also  a  special 
chamber  of  the  Kantonsgericht  serves  as  a  court  of  last  resort. 
Questions  of  fact  in  criminal  cases  are  decided  by  juries,  which 
usually  consist  of  six  or  nine  members,  popularly  elected.  In 
but  few  instances  can  an  appeal  be  carried  from  a  cantonal  to  a 
federal  tribunal.1 

'Vincent,  Government  in  Switzerland,  Chap,  x;  Lloyd,  .1  Sovereign  People, 
Chap.  iii. 


CHAPTER   XXXIII 

THE  FEDERAL   GOVERNMENT 

The  Federal  Assembly :  the  National  Council.  —  When  they 
came  to  make  provision  for  the  national  legislature  the  framers 
of  the  Swiss  constitution  of  1848  faced  the  same  problems  that 
caused  the  authors  of  our  own  national  organic  law  in  1787  many 
troubled  hours.  Should  the  legislative  body  be  unicameral  or 
bicameral  ?  How  should  the  members  be  chosen  ?  If  two  houses 
were  established,  should  they  have  the  same  powers  and  func- 
tions ?  What  should  be  their  relation  to  the  national  executive  ? 
All  Swiss  experience  pointed  to  the  organization  of  the  legislature 
in  a  single  chamber.  Save  during  the  brief  period  1 798-1803, 
the  only  common  organ  that  the  Confederation  had  ever  known 
was  a  unicameral  diet ;  and  the  cantonal  legislatures  were  with- 
out exception  of  the  same  form.  On  the  other  hand,  bicameral 
legislatures  were  by  far  the  more  common  throughout  the  civilized 
world;  the  English  Parliament,  the  French  Parliament  as  or- 
ganized from  1 814  to  1848,  the  American  Congress,  and  the  legis- 
latures of  the  American  states,  were  impressive  examples.  Now 
that  large  power  was  to  be  conferred  upon  the  central  govern- 
ment, the  argument  that  there  ought  to  be  an  upper  house  to 
act  as  a  check  upon  the  lower  one  had  much  weight.  Finally, 
and  perhaps  mainly,  the  creation  of  two  houses  would  make  it 
possible  to  organize  one  of  them  with  a  definite  view  to  recogniz- 
ing and  preserving  the  identity  of  the  several  cantons  and  pre- 
venting the  influence  of  the  smaller  ones  from  being  overwhelmed 
by  that  of  the  larger  ones. 

As  at  Philadelphia  in  1787,  considerations  of  this  sort  carried 
the  day.  Hence  the  provision  with  which  the  chapter  of  the  Swiss 
constitution  devoted  to  the  federal  authorities  opens  :  "  With  the 
reservation  of  the  rights  of  the  people  and  of  the  cantons,  the 
supreme  authority  of  the  Confederation  shall  be  exercised  by  the 
Federal  Assembly,  which  shall  consist  of  two  sections  or  councils, 
namely,  (1)  the  National  Council,  and  (2)  the  Council  of  States." * 
Herein,  indeed,  are  laid  down  two  fundamental  features  of  the 

1  Art.  71.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II,  276. 
S87 


GOVERNMEN  rS  OF   EUROPE 

Swiss  political  system.  One  is  the  bicameral  organization  of  the 
national  legislature.    The  other  is  the  concentration  of  supreme 

authority  in  this  legislature.  Like  Greal  Britain  and  France, 
Switzerland  has  not  proceeded  on  the  principle  of  separation  ol 
powers.  Her  government  is  not  organized,  as  is  that  oi  the  United 
States,  in  coordinate  branches.  The  executive  and  the  judiciary 
arc  duly  provided  for,  but  they  arc  subordinate. 

The  National  Council  is  essentially  a  House  of  Commons;  the 
Council  of  the  States,  a  Senate.  The  National  Council  is  com- 
posed of  representatives  popularly  chosen,  for  a  term  ol  three 
years,  by  direct  vole  and  by  secret  ballot.  The  constitution 
provides  that  each  canton  shall  have  one  representative  for  every 
20,000  inhabitants,  or  major  fraction  thereof,  with  the  further 
stipulation  that  every  canton  and  half-canton  shall  have  at  least 
one  representative.  As  in  the  United  States,  a  census  is  taken 
every  ten  years,  whereupon  a  reapportionment  of  seat>  is  made  ; 
and,  contrary  to  American  practice,  the  federal  legislature  not 
merely  allots  to  each  state  it-,  quota  of  representatives,  but  lays 
out  the  election  districts.  The  original  number  of  members  was 
T20;  it  is  rtow,  on  the  basis  of  the  census  of  igio,  189.  Bern  has 
thirty-two  seats,  Zurich  twenty-five,  Vaud  sixteen,  and  thus 
downwards  to  Uri  and  Zug  with  a  single  member  each.  Dis- 
tricts have  usually  been  so  arranged  as  to  return  two,  three, 
four,  or  more  members,  elected  on  a  general  ticket ;  so  that  when, 
in  k;i8,  after  repeated  efforts,  the  principle  of  proportional  repre- 
sentation was  introduced,  no  great  amount  of  geographical  read- 
justment was  necessary.  The  electorate  consists  of  all  male  c  it  i  - 
zens  who  have  attained  the  age  of  twenty,  except  such  as  may  have 
been  disfranchised  by  the  cantons  in  which  they  reside.1  All  terms 
expire  at  the  same  time,  and  elections  are  held  on  the  same  day 
(the  last  Sunday  in  October)  throughout  the  entire  country.  On 
the  first  ballot  an  absolute  majority  is  necessary  to  a  choice.  If 
seats  remain  unfilled  as  a  result  of  this  rule,  a  second  ballot  is 
taken  two  or  three  weeks  later,  and  on  this  occasion  a  simple 
plurality  is  sufficient  to  elect.  Feeling  against  the  Catholic  clergy 
in  the  era  of  the  Sonderbund  found  expression  in  a  clause  of  the 
constitution  confining  membership  in  the  National  Council  to 
laymen.  Protestant  clergymen  can,  and  sometimes  do.  become 
members  after  having  temporarily  or  permanently  divested  them- 

1  I  he  woman's  suffrage  movement  has  made  little  headway  in  Switzerland,  and 
it  has  won  no  cepl  in  connection  with  the  election  of  non-political  officers 

in  two  or  three  cantons.  At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  National  Woman's  Suffrage 
Association  in  191 7  a  resolution  was  adopted  Favoring  the  use  of  the  initiative  to 
get  before  the  voters  an  amendment  conferring  the  federal  franchise  npon  women. 


THE   FEDERAL   GOVERNMENT  589 

selves  of  their  clerical  status.  Catholic  clergy  can  qualify  them- 
selves in  this  way  less  easily,  practically  not  at  all ;  hence  they 
are  still  debarred.  Otherwise,  every  voter  is  eligible.  Members 
receive  from  the  federal  treasury  the  modest  compensation  of\ 
twenty  francs  for  each  day  they  are  actually  in  attendance,  with 
deductions  for  tardiness  without  excuse;  they  also  receive  a 
small  mileage  allowance. 

At  each  regular  or  extraordinary  session  the  National  Council 
chooses  from  among  its  members  a  president,  a  vice-president, 
and  four  tellers,  under  the  provision  that  a  member  who  during 
a  regular  session  has  held  the  office  of  president  is  ineligible  either 
as  president  or  vice-president  at  the  ensuing  regular  session,  and 
that  the  same  member  may  not  be  vice-president  during  two 
consecutive  regular  sessions.  This  arrangement  was  devised  on 
the  supposition  that  there  would  be  only  one  regular  session  a 
year.  The  volume  of  business  has  long  required  two  such  ses- 
sions. However,  by  a  legislative  fiction  the  two  are  considered 
as  one,  and  the  officers  continue  at  their  posts  throughout  the 
year.  In  the  election  of  vice-presidents,  tellers,  and  other  officers 
the  president  participates  as  any  other  member  ;  on  bills  and  reso- 
lutions he  usually  votes  only  in  the  case  of  a  tie.  The  president, 
vice-president,  and  tellers  together  form  the  "  bureau  "  of  the 
Council,  which  selects  most  of  the  committees,  counts  votes,  and 
transacts  routine  business. 

The  Federal  Assembly :  the  Council  of  States.  —  Whatever 
arguments  there  may  be  for  a  bicameral  legislature  in  a  unitary 
state  like  France  or  Italy,  there  is  always  the  additional  consider- 
ation in  a  federal  state  that  a  perfectly  natural  basis  exists  for 
making  up  an  upper  chamber  which  will  not  be  a  mere  replica 
of  the  lower  one ;  it  can  be  made  to  represent  the  states  as  such,  or 
at  all  events  the  people  grouped  in  constituencies  very  different 
from  those  represented  by  the  members  of  the  lower  branch.  Of 
such  character  is  the  American  Senate,  and  likewise  the  Swiss 
Council  of  States.  At  first  glance,  the  Swiss  upper  chamber  seems 
almost  exactly  like  the  American ;  and  it  is  a  matter  of  record 
that  the  authors  of  the  Swiss  constitution  decided  upon  a  second 
chamber  mainly  because  they  wanted  in  the  new  system  an  agency 
that  would  serve  the  purposes  that  were  understood  to  be  served 
by  the  American  upper  house.  In  point  of  fact,  however,  the 
Swiss  Council  is  very  unlike  its  American  prototype.  It  consists 
of  forty-four  members,  two  chosen  in  each  canton ;  and  to  this 
extent  it  indeed  resembles  the  Senate.  The  manner  of  election 
and  the  qualifications  of  members,  however,  as  well  as  tenure  of 


5QO 


GO\  ERNM1  NTS  01     EUROPE 


office  and  the  amount  of  remuneration,  arc  not  regulated,  as 
ne  in  the  United  States,  by  the  constitution,  or  by  federal 
authority,  but  are  left  to  be  determined  quite  independently 
i>v  the  several  cantons.  Consequently,  although  certain  usages 
;uv  becoming  somewhat  prevalent,  there  is  no  uniformity  in 
these  matters.  In  most  cantons  the  councilors  arc  chosen  by 
Popular  voir,  as  United  States  senators  arc  now  chosen;  but  in 
seven  they  are  elected  by  the  legislature.  Five  cantons  and  hall- 
cantons  elect  for  one  year,  one  ele<  ts  for  two  years,  one  for  four 
years,  the  remainder  elect  for  three.  By  the  terms  of  the  federal 
constitution  the  salaries  of  members  must  be  paid  by  the  cantons ; 
and  while  salaries  and  mileage  arc  usually  paid  at  the  same  rates 
as  are  provided  by  federal  law  for  the  members  of  the  National 
Council,  there  is  still  a  certain  amount  of  variation.  The  Coun- 
cil of  States  is,  therefore,  more  purely  federal  than  the  American 
Senate,  because  its  composition  and  character  are  determined  to 
a  greater  degree  by  the  several  states. 

In  the  second  place,  the  functions  of  the  upper  chamber  are 
practically  identical  with  those  of  the  lower.  On  account  of  its 
connection  with  treaty-making  and  appointments  (not  to  speak 
of  its  duties  in  impeachment  cases),  the  American  Senate  has 
power  and  character  of  its  own,  unshared  by  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. The  Swiss  Council  has  nothing  of  the  kind.  Even 
its  organization  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  lower  chamber.  In  the 
earlier  days  of  the  present  constitutional  system  the  Council 
indeed  enjoyed  high  prestige  and  influence;  but  in  time  it  fell 
into  decline.  Able  and  ambitious  statesmen  have  usually  pre- 
ferred to  be  identified  with  the  lower  house.  The  chamber  has 
large  powers  —  powers  nominally  coordinate  with  those  of  the 
lower  one  — ■  and  it  occasionally  defeats  measures  sent  up  to  it 
by  the  National  Council.  But,  without  being  quite  the  feeble 
upper  chamber  that  is  apt  to  be  associated  with  a  cabinet  system 
of  government,1  it  is  yet  essentially  lacking  in  the  initiative  and 
independence  of  a  true  senate. 

Powers  and  Procedure  of  the  Federal  Assembly.  -- "  The 
National  Council  and  the  Council  of  State-."  says  the  federal 
constitution,  "shall  consider  all  the  subjects  which  the  present 
constitution  places  within  the  competence  of  the  Confederation 
and  which  are  not  assigned  to  any  other  federal  authority." 
The  range  of  this  competence  is  very  broad.  It  includes  not  only 
a  vast  volume  of  legislative  power,  but  important  functions  of  a 

1  The  French  Senate  is  the prini  ipal  exception  to  this  rule.     Seep.  411. 

-'  Art.  84.      Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  II,  278. 


THE  FEDERAL   GOVERNMENT  591 

constituent,  an  electoral,  an  executive,  and  a  judicial  nature.  The 
part  taken  by  the  Assembly  in  constitution-making  will  be  de- 
scribed presently  in  connection  with  the  operation  of  the  federal 
referendum.1  The  electoral  function  consists  in  the  choice  of 
the  Federal  Council  (the  chief  executive  authority),  the  Federal 
Court,  the  chancellor,2  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  army,  and 
such  other  officers  as  may  be  specified  by  law.  On  the  executive, 
or  quasi-executive  side,  the  Assembly  (1)  declares  war  and  makes 
peace,  (2)  guarantees  the  constitutions  and  territory  of  the  can- 
tons, (3)  grants  amnesties  and  pardons,  (4)  takes  measures  for 
the  internal  safety  of  the  country  and  for  the  maintenance  of 
peace  and  order,  (5)  approves  all  alliances  and  treaties  with 
foreign  powers  —  also  all  agreements  made  by  the  cantons  among 
themselves  or  with  foreign  powers,  in  case  the  Federal  Council 
or  any  canton  protests,  (6)  controls  the  federal  army,  and  (7) 
supervises  the  federal  administration  and  the  federal  courts. 
These  functions,  it  is  true,  are  in  part  actually  performed  by  the 
Federal  Council ;  but,  as  will  be  emphasized  below,  this  execu- 
tive agency  is,  in  all  these  matters  and  many  others,  under  ab- 
solute control  of  the  legislature. 

On  the  judicial  side,  the  Assembly  formerly  acted  as  a  court  of 
last  resort  to  consider  (1)  protests  against  the  decisions  of  the 
Federal  Council  upon  administrative  conflicts  and  (2)  conflicts 
of  jurisdiction  between  federal  authorities.  However,  a  federal 
administrative  court  authorized  by  an  amendment  of  191 4  has 
taken  over  the  larger  part  of  this  somewhat  onerous  task.  The 
grant  of  legislative  power  is  both  general  and  specific.  On  the 
one  hand,  the  Assembly  is  endowed  with  full  authority  to  make 
"  laws  and  ordinances  upon  subjects  which  by  the  constitution  are 
placed  within  the  federal  competence " ;  on  the  other  hand, 
original  clauses  and  later  amendments  bestow  particular  powers, 
such  as  to  adopt  budgets,  create  offices,  fix  salaries,  regulate  the 
civil  and  criminal  law,  and  enact  uniform  regulations  concern- 
ing the  arts  and  trades. 

The  constitution  requires  that  the  two  councils  shall  meet  at 
least  once  a  year.  In  point  of  fact,  two  regular  sessions  (tech- 
nically regarded  as  one)  are  always  held,  one  beginning  in  Novem- 
ber and  the  other  in  June  ;  and  an  extraordinary  meeting  in  March 
has  almost  become  a  custom.     An  extraordinary  session  may  be 

1  See  p.  593. 

2  His  principal  duty  is  to  keep  the  minutes  of  the  National  Council.  A  vice- 
chancellor,  appointed  by  the  Federal  Council,  performs  a  similar  function  in  the 
Council  of  States. 


S9-1 


GO\  ERNMEN  I      "I     El  ROPE 


called  by  the  Federal  Council  od  its  own  motion;  one  must  be 
called  upon  request  of  either  one  fourth  of  the  members  of  the 
National  Council  or  five  cantons.  Normally,  business  is  trans- 
acted, as  in  other  Legislatures,  by  the  two  houses  sitting  sep 
lately.  But  for  certain  purposes  the  twosit  asone  body,  decisions 
being  reached  by  a  simple  majority  of  the  members  present  and 
voting.  These  purposes  arc  three:  i  i  election  of  the  officials 
mentioned  above,  (2)  exercise  of  the  power  of  pardon,  and  (3) 
decision  of  conflicts  of  jurisdiction  between  different  federal 
authorities.  The  French  method  of  electing  the  chief  executive 
in  a  joint  session  of  the  legislative  chambers  thus  finds  a  parallel 
in  Switzerland.  Procedure  of  the  councils  is  regulated  to  a  slight 
degree  by  the  constitution,  but  mainly  by  parliamentary  acts  and 
rules.  Sittings  are  commonly  public;  but  ten  members  of  tin- 
lower  house  and  five  of  the  upper  may  move  to  close  the  doors. 
Three  official  languages  —  German,  French,  and  Italian  —  arc- 
used  ;  laws  and  documents  are  printed  in  all. 

According  to  the  constitution,  bills  and  resolutions  may  be 
introduced  in  either  house,  and  by  any  member.  Two  or  three 
things  are  important  to  observe,  however,  in  this  connection. 
One  of  them  is  the  peculiarly  Swiss  principle  that  every  bill  in- 
troduced is  introduced  in  the  National  Assembly,  i.e.,  in  both 
houses,  and  not  in  one  house  or  the  other  separately.  Any  bill 
introduced  is  therefore  before  both  houses,  and  either  body  may 
proceed  at  any  time  to  consider  it.  Speaking  strictly,  therefore, 
the  usual  rule  that  money  bills  shall  originate  in  the  lower  house 
does  not  apply.  In  point  of  fact,  however,  such  bills,  after  being 
presented  by  the  Federal  Council,  are  regularly  taken  up  first  in 
the  larger  chamber.  This  suggests  a  second  important  fact, 
namely,  that,  while  all  members  have  an  unrestricted  right  to 
introduce  measures,  most  persons  who  wish  to  avail  themselves 
of  this  right  present  their  proposals  to  the  Federal  Council,  to 
be  considered  and  put  into  shape  by  it,  and  hence  do  not  intro- 
duce them  directly  and  in  person.  This  practice  has  the  very 
great  advantage  of  enabling  most  bills  to  be  drafted  by  expert 
authority  and  to  be  made  coherent  and  exact  before  they  engage 
the  time  of  the  legislative  bodies.  The  Federal  Council  may,  of 
course,  introduce  measures  on  its  own  initiative.  Its  members 
do  not  have  votes  in  the  Assembly,  but  they  appear  before  the 
chambers  to  explain  and  defend  the  bills  which  they  have  spon- 
sored. There  are  committees,  whose  members  are  chosen  by  the 
Council  directly  or  by  the  bureau  of  officers ;  but  bills  are  referred 
to  them  only  by  a  special  vote.     Debate  in  the   two    councils 


THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  593 

proceeds  with  notable  freedom.  The  membership  is  not  large ; 
the  level  of  intelligence  and  integrity  is  high ;  party  spirit  does 
not,  as  a  rule,  run  strong ;  the  presiding  officers  are  traditionally 
fair  to  all  elements ;  turbulence  is  almost  unknown ;  rules  are  few 
and  simple ;  the  closure  is  employed,  but  only  on  demand  of  two 
thirds  of  the  membership,  and  not  so  long  as  a  member  who  has 
not  taken  part  in  the  debate  wishes  to  introduce  and  explain 
an  amendment.1 

The  Referendum.  —  From  cantonal  legislative  procedure  was 
long  ago  carried  over  into  the  domain  of  federal  law-making  the 
now  familiar  device  of  the  referendum.  As  in  the  cantons,  the 
federal  referendum  is  employed  in  two  forms,  i.e.,  compulsory 
and  optional.  The  one  was  introduced  in  the  constitution  of 
1848,  and  applies  solely  to  constitutional  amendments.  The 
other  first  appeared  in  the  revised  constitution  of  1874,  and  ap- 
plies to  ordinary  laws.  The  somewhat  curious  attempt  is  made 
in  the  constitution  to  distinguish  between  "total"  and  "par- 
tial "  constitutional  revisions;  and  three  different  modes  for  the 
one  and  two  for  the  other  are  laid  down.  In  the  event  that  the 
legislative  councils  agree  upon  a  total  revision,  they  frame  and 
adopt  the  new  constitution  precisely  as  if  it  were  an  ordinary 
statute,  whereupon  it  is  submitted  to  the  people  for  ratification. 
If,  however,  the  houses  disagree,  or  if  as  many  as  50,000  voters 
demand  a  total  revision,  the  question  whether  there  shall  be  a 
revision  must  be  submitted  to  the  people ;  if  in  either  case  the 
majority  opinion  is  affirmative,  new  legislative  councils  must  be 
elected  for  the  purpose  of  undertaking  the  work.2  Partial  re- 
vision may  be  initiated  by  the  councils  and  carried  through  as  is 
a  statute,  subject  to  popular  ratification.  Or  it  may  be  proposed 
in  a  citizens'  petition  bearing  fifty  thousand  signatures.  If  the 
popular  proposal  comes  in  definite  form,  the  councils  consider  it 
and,  if  they  agree  to  it,  submit  it  for  ratification.  If  it  is  general 
rather  than  specific,  they  themselves  reduce  it  to  form  sufficiently 
definite  for  action.  If  they  disapprove  a  proposal,  they  must 
submit  it  to  the  people,  but  they  may  accompany  it  with  an  al- 
ternative, or  with  a  recommendation  of  rejection.  In  any  case, 
an  amendment  becomes  effective  only  when  adopted  by  a  major- 
ity of  citizens  voting  thereon  and  by  a  majority  of  the  cantons. 
874  and  191 7  twenty-one  amendments  were  voted 
al  legislature,  and  all  but  five  were  ratified  by  the 

ccounts  of  procedure  in  the  councils  see  Brooks,  Government  and 
zrland,  91-101,  and  Vincent,  Government  in  Switzerland,  181-187. 
Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  II,  287. 


594  GOVERNMENTS  OF   KUROPE 

requisite  popular  and  cantonal  majorities;  of  the  six  voted 
during  the  last  twelve  years  of  this  period,  all  were  adopted. 
Some  of  the  sixteen  successful  amendments  related  to  the  frame- 
work of  government,  e.g.,  the  measure  of  [893  instituting  the 
popular  initiative  of  constitutional  amendments  and  the  measure 
of  [914  establishing  a  federal  administrative  court.  Others  were 
directed  at  legal  reform,  e.g.,  the  two  amendments  of  1898  pro- 
viding for  uniform  civil  and  criminal  codes.  But  the  majority 
had  in  view  the  extension  of  the  power  of  the  federal  government 
in  social  and  economic  legislation,  e.g.,  the  amendment  of  1885 
permitting  creation  of  the  alcohol  monopoly,  that  of  1897 
authorizing  pure  food  legislation,  and  that  of  1908  conferring 
authority  for  uniform  industrial  legislation.1 

Since  1874  the  referendum  has  been  applied  also  to  ordinary 
legislation,  but  only  in  the  optional  form.  Laws  and  resolutions 
passed  by  the  Federal  Assembly,  unless  declared  to  be  of  a  private 
rather  than  a  public  nature,  or  to  be  urgent,  are  suspended  for  a 
period  of  ninety  days,  to  afford  opportunity  for  requests  for  a 
referendum  to  be  duly  circulated.  If  during  this  interval  peti- 
tions signed  by  as  many  as  30,000  voters,  or  adopted  by  the 
legislatures  of  as  many  as  eight  cantons,  are  filed  with  the  Federal 
Council,  that  authority  must  arrange  for  submission  of  the  meas- 
ure in  question  to  a  popular  vote  within  four  weeks  after  the 
demand  is  officially  announced.  The  mode  of  carrying  out  the 
referendum  is  carefully  prescribed  by  federal  legislation.  If  a 
majority  of  the  votes  cast,  without  regard  to  the  number  or  pro- 
portion of  cantons,  is  favorable,  the  Federal  Council  proclaims 
the  fact,  and  the  measure  takes  effect  without  further  delay.  An 
adverse  majority,  on  the  other  hand,  renders  the  measure  null. 
In  the  event  that  no  referendum  is  demanded,  the  measure,  of 
course,  goes  into  effect  automatically  at  the  expiration  of  the 
ninety-day  period. 

As  in  the  cantons,  the  referendum  upon  ordinary  laws  has  been 
used  sparingly.  Not  once  ha\  e  eight  cantonal  governments  taken 
the  necessary  steps  to  cause  a  law  to  be  referred.  More  signifi- 
cant than  this  is  the  fact  that  of  two  hundred  sixty-one  measures 
subject  to  referendum  passed  between  1874  and  the  close  of  1908, 
only  thirty  -  or  barely  11.5  per  cent  were  brought  to  a  popu- 
lar vote.     Furthermore,  of  these  thirty,  only  nineteen  were  re- 

1  See  compk-t c  list,  with  votes,  in   Brooks,  Government  and  Politics  of  Switzer- 
138-130.     The  earlier  history  of  Swiss  constitutional  revision  is  surveyed  in 
Borgeaud,   Adoption   and   Amendment   of  Constitutions,   291-332,  and  Duploige, 
Referendum  in  Switzerland,  211-265. 


THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  595 

jected.  "  The  effect  of  the  federal  optional  legislative  referendum 
was,  then,  to  hold  up  a  little  more  than  seven  per  cent  of  the 
statutory  output  of  the  Federal  Assembly."1  Since  1900  there 
has  been  a  popular  vote  on  only  six  measures,  —  two  relating  to 
accident  and  sickness  insurance,  one  to  tariffs,  one  to  pure  food 
regulations,  one  to  army  reorganization,  and  one  to  certain 
additions  to  the  penal  code. 

The  Initiative.  —  The  constitution  of  1848  provided  that  proj- 
ects for  total  revision  of  the  fundamental  law  might  be  initiated 
by  fifty  thousand  voters.  This  proved  of  little  practical  use; 
what  was  needed,  it  was  soon  discovered,  was  rather  a  right  of 
popular  initiative  of  single,  specific  amendments.  After  prolonged 
discussion,  an  amendment  conferring  this  right  was  adopted  in 
1 89 1.2  The  working  of  the  system  has  been  explained  in  the 
preceding  section.  Any  fifty  thousand  voters  can  at  any  time 
compel  the  federal  government  to  take  action  upon  proposed 
changes  in  the  constitution  and  to  submit  a  project,  with  or  with- 
out its  approval,  for  final  action  by  the  people.  "  All  that  an 
unwilling  legislature  can  do  is  to  submit  a  counter  proposal  or 
advise  the  people  to  vote  down  the  initiative  project."  When 
the  system  was  established  it  was  felt  in  some  quarters  that  the 
door  had  been  thrown  open  for  frequent,  ill-considered,  and  revo- 
lutionary changes,  which  would  impair  the  stability,  and  even  the 
permanence,  of  the  republic.  Such  apprehension,  however,  has 
proved  groundless.  In  upwards  of  thirty  years  only  ten  popu- 
larly initiated  amendments  have  been  voted  on,  and  only  four 
have  been  adopted.3 

The  earliest  use  made  of  the  new  device  was,  indeed,  unjusti- 
fiable ;  in  1893  an  amendment  was  adopted,  by  a  vote  of  191,517 
to  127,101,  prohibiting  the  Jewish  method  of  slaughtering  animals. 
This  action  was  mainly  a  result  of  antisemitic  prejudice.  How- 
ever, it  is  to  be  observed  that  no  legislation  for  enforcement  has 
been  enacted,  and  that  in  most  cantons  the  amendment  is  a  dead 
letter.  The  second  and  third  proposals,  brought  forward  in  1894, 
were  entirely  creditable,  although  somewhat  radical.  One  was 
a  socialistic  scheme  obligating  the  state  to  provide  employment 
for  every  able-bodied  man ;  the  other  was  a  project  to  pay  over 
to  the  cantons  a  bonus  of  two  francs  per  capita  from  the  rapidly 
increasing  returns  of  the  customs  duties.     But  both  were  defeated 

1  Rappard,  in  Amer.  Polit.  Set.  Rev.,  Aug.,  191 2,  357.  For  a  complete  list,  with 
votes,  see  Brooks,  op.  cit.,  154-155. 

2  Borgeaud,  Adoption  and  Amendment  of  Constitutions,  306-316. 

3  Strictly,  only  eight  dijferent  amendments  have  been  voted  on ;  for  the  proposal 
for  proportional  representation  was  before  the  people  three  times. 


596  GOVERNMENTS  01     EUROPE 

by  substantia]  majorities.1  The  next  three  proposals  related 
to  changes  in  the  governmental  system  :  (i)  election  of  the  Na 
tional  Council  on  the  plan  of  proportional  representation,  defeat)  d 
in  i  goo  by  a  vote  of  241 ,666  to  [69,008  ;  (2)  increase  of  the  Fed- 
eral Council  to  nine,  and  substitution  of  election  by  popular 
vote  Eor  election  by  the  Federal  Assembly,  defeated  also  in  1000 
70,522  to  1  15,926;  and  (3)  exclusion  of  the  non-citizen  popu- 
lation in  apportioning  members  of  the  National  ( 'ouncil,  defeated 
in  1903  by  295,085  to  95,121.  In  [908  two  popularly  initiated 
amendments  were  adopted  the  firsl  in  fifteen  years.  One, 
prohibiting  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  absinthe,  was  carried 
by  a  vote  of  241,078  to  [38,669;  the  other,  authorizing  federal 
regulation  of  water-power,  prevailed  by  a  vote  of  304,923  to 
56,237.  In  1010  the  proportional  representation  project  was 
revived,  but  was  lost  by  265,194  to  240,305.  Revived  again  in 
1918,  it  at  last  triumphed,  by  a  vote  of  .200.550  to  149,035, 
winning  the  support  of  all  of  the  cantons  except  three.2  It  is 
natural  that  the  proportion  of  popularly  initiated  amendments 
to  be  adopted  should  be  small.  In  the  case  of  a  simple  referen- 
dum, the  presumption  is,  as  one  writer  has  put  it,  that  the  pro- 
posed change  must  have  wide  popular  support,  as  otherwise  the 
two  houses  would  hardly  take  it  up.  An  initiative  proposal, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  undertaken  precisely  because  the  legis- 
lature stands  out  against  it,  presumably  because  the  representa- 
tives feel  that  it  does  not  command  a  popular  majority.3 

Dubious  as  was  its  earlier  history,  the  federal  initiative  must 
be  recognized  as  having  fully  justified  itself.  Proposals  since 
1900  have  been,  without  exception,  constructive  and  reasonable  ; 
those  that  have  been  adopted  have  proved  of  substantial  benefit. 
Among  reforms  that  have  been  much  discussed  in  recent  years 
has  been  the  extension  of  the  scope  of  the  popular  initiative,  and 
also  of  the  compulsory  referendum,  so  as  to  apply  to  all  federal 
legislation.  Both  apply  as  yet  only  to  constitutional  amend- 
ments. In  1906  the  Federal  Council  went  so  far  as  to  submit  to 
the  legislative  councils  a  proposal  intended  to  meet  the  first 
of  these  ends.  The  purport  of  the  plan  was  that  fifty  thousand 
voters  or  eight  cantons  should  have  the  power  to  propose  and 
bring  to  a  nation-wide  vote  any  sort  of  federal  law  or  resolution. 

1  C.  Borgeaud,  "Le  plebiscite  du  4  novembre  1894,"  in  Rn\  d:t  Droit  Public, 
Nov -Dec.,  1894.  The  adverse  votes  were  308,289  to  75,880  and  350,639  to  145,462 
respectively. 

-  M.  Deslanfk-rs,  "  Le  triomphe  de  la  R.  P.  en  Suisse,"  in  Rev.  Polit.  et  Pari., 
Apr.,  1919. 

3  Brooks,  Government  <uul  Politics  of  Switzerland,  146. 


THE   FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  597 

The  project  was  discussed  in  the  lower  branch  of  the  Assembly, 
but  without  result.  An  obvious  objection  to  a  compulsory  form 
of  federal  referendum  would  be  the  increased  burden  that  would 
be  thrown  upon  the  voters.  The  present  burden  is,  however,  not 
so  great  as  might  be  imagined,  and  perhaps  it  could  be  increased 
with  no  undesirable  effect.  The  largest  number  of  federal  initia- 
tive and  referendum  measures  voted  on  in  any  one  year  since 
1874  is  five  (in  1891) ;  in  the  populous  canton  of  Zurich  the  aver- 
age number  of  measures,  both  federal  and  cantonal,  voted  on 
by  the  people  between  1874  and  1894  was  under  two  and 
one-half  for  each  time  that  they  were  called  to  the  polls. 
The  cost  of  the  system,  too,  is  very  small.  Copies  of  the  meas- 
ures to  be  voted  on  are  printed  and  distributed  by  the  federal 
government ;  incidental  expenses  are  borne  by  the  cantons  and 
communes.1 

The  Executive  :  Federal  Council  and  President.  —  When  they 
had  made  the  important  decision  that  there  should  be  a  separate 
and  strong  executive,  the  framers  of  the  Swiss,  as  of  the  American, 
constitution  were  confronted  with  the  question  whether  the  exec- 
utive power  should  be  vested  in  one  person  or  in  a  board  or  com- 
mission. In  the  United  States  the  disadvantages  assumed  to 
be  inherent  in  an  executive  consisting  of  a  number  of  persons 
who  were  neither  individually  responsible  nor  likely  to  be  alto- 
gether harmonious  determined  a  decision  in  favor  of  a  single  presi- 
dent. In  Switzerland;  on  the  other  hand,  the  cantonal  tradition 
of  a  collegial  executive,  combined  with  an  exaggerated  fear  of 
the  concentration  of  power,  determined  resort  to  the  other 
alternative.  There  is  a  president  of  the  Swiss  Confederation. 
But,  as  will  appear,  his  status  is  altogether  different  from  that 
of  the  president  of  the  United  States,  and  likewise  from  that  of 
the  president  of  France.  The  Swiss  executive  consists  rather  of 
a  Bundesrath,2  or  Federal  Council,  in  which  the  president  is  little 
more  than  chairman. 

"  The  supreme  directive  and  executive  authority  of  the  Con- 
federation," says  the  constitution,  "  shall  be  exercised  by  a 
Federal  Council,  composed  of  seven  members."  The  members 
of  this  body  are  elected  by  the  Federal  Assembly,  i.e.,  the  National 

>  J  For  references  on  the  initiative  and  the  referendum  see  p.  584.  Other  author- 
itative discussions  are  W.  E.  Rappard,  "The  Initiative  and  Referendum  in  Switzer- 
land," in  Amer.  Polit.  Sci.  Rev.,  Aug.,  1912,  and  "The  Initiative,  Referendum, 
and  Recall  in  Switzerland,"  in  Ann.  Amer.  Acad.  Polit.  and  Soc.  Sci.,  Sept.,  191 2 ; 
Bonjour,  Real  Democracy  in  Operation.  Chaps,  iv-vii. 

2  The  name  is  German,  but  the  institution  bears  no  resemblance  whatsoever  to 
the  Bundesrat  of  the  former  Hohenzollern  empire. 


GOVERNM1  NTS  OF   EUROPE 

Counciland  the  Council  of  the  States  in  joint  session,  from  among 
all  citizens  eligible  to  the  National  Council,  or  popular  legisla- 
tive body,  with  the  condition  simply  that  not  more  than  one 
member  may  be  chosen  from  the  same  (anion.    By  custom,  hut 

not  by  constitutional  requirement,  they  an'  selet  ted  from  among 

the  membersof  the  two  houses;  though  upon  election  they  must 

up  their  seats.      Nominally,  the  term  is  three  years;  P'ac- 

tically,  it  is  variable,  for  whenever  the  National  Council  i^  dis- 

SOlved  prior  to  the  expiration  of  its  triennial  period  the  new  As- 
sembly proceeds  to  choose  a  new  Federal  Council.     Two  officials, 
designated  respectively  as  president  of  the  Confederation  and 
vice-president  of  the  Federal  Council,  are  elected  annually  by 
the  Assembly  from  among  the  seven  members  of  the  Council. 
A  retiring  president  may  not  be  elected  president  or  vice-presi- 
dent for  the  succeeding  year;   nor  may  any  member  occupy  the 
vice-presidency  during  two  consecutive  years.     By  custom  the 
vice-president  regularly  succeeds  to  the  presidency.     The  func- 
tions of  the  president,  as  such,  hardly  extend  beyond  presiding 
over  the  deliberations  of  the  Council,  exercising  a  general  super- 
vision over  the  conduct  of  administration,  and  representing  the 
republic,  at  home  and  abroad,  on  ceremonial  occasions.     He  has 
no  more  actual  power  than  any  of  his  six  colleagues.     Like  them, 
he  takes  charge  of  an  executive  department  —  frequently,  al- 
though not  necessarily,  the  "political"  department,  including 
the  direction  of  foreign  affairs  —  and  gives  most  of  his  time  to 
its  management.     He  receives  only  twenty  thousand  francs  a 
year,  which  is  but  two   thousand   more   than  is  paid  his  as- 
sociates. 

The  work  of  administration  is  divided  among  seven  depart- 
ments as  follows :  political1  interior,  justice  and  police,  military 
affairs,  imposts  and  finance,  posts  and  railways,  and  commerce, 
industry,  and  agriculture.  To  each  is  assigned  from  time  to  time 
by  the  president  such  subjects  for  consideration  as  properly  fall 
within  its  domain.  The  constitution  stipulates,  however,  that 
this  distribution  shall  be  made  only  for  the  purpose  of  facilitating 
the  examination  and  dispatch  of  business;  all  decisions  must 
emanate  from  the  Council  as  a  body.2  Ordinarily  a  councilor 
remains  at  the  head  of  a  department  through  a  considerable 

1  The  so-called  "political"  department  includes  not  only  foreign  affairs,  but  also 
the  administration  of  such  domestic  matters  as  citizenship,  federal  election  laws,  and 
emigration  laws.  , 

=  Art.  103.  Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  II,  284.  For  a  synopsis  of  the  law  of 
July  8,  1887,  making  an  apportionment  of  functions  among  the  departments,  see 
Dupriez,  Les  minis tres,  II,  239-246. 


THE   FEDERAL   GOVERNMENT  599 

number  of  years,1  and  it  may  be  added  that,  by  reason  of  the  in- 
creasing volume  of  government  business,  the  department  head 
enjoys  a  larger  measure  of  independence  to-day  than  formerly. 
A  quorum  of  the  Council  consists  of  four  members,  and  no  mem- 
ber may  absent  himself  from  a  session  without  excuse.  Except 
on  questions  of  appointment,  voting  is  viva  voce;  and  an  abstract 
of  proceedings  is  published  in  the  official  gazette  of  the  republic. 

Although  at  certain  points  resembling  a  cabinet,  the  Federal 
Council  is  not  a  cabinet,  and  no  such  thing  as  cabinet  government 
can  be  said  to  exist  in  Switzerland.  The  Council  does,  it  is  true, 
prepare  measures  and  lay  them  before  the  Assembly.  Its  mem- 
bers even  appear  on  the  floor  of  the  two  chambers  and  defend 
these  measures.  But  the  councilors  are  not,  and  cannot  be, 
members  of  the  Assembly ;  they  do  not,  of  necessity,  represent 
a  common  political  party,  faith,  or  program ;  they  are  not 
necessarily  agreed  among  themselves  upon  the  merits  or  demerits 
of  a  particular  legislative  proposal ;  and  if  overruled  by  a  majority 
of  the  Assembly  they  do  not  think  of  retiring  from  office.2  In 
other  words,  the  Council  is  essentially  what  Swiss  writers  have 
themselves  termed  it,  i.e.,  an  executive  committee  of  the  Federal 
Assembly.  It  has  a  large  measure  of  solidarity,  but  only  for 
the  purposes  of  routine  business.  Quite  superior  to  it  in  every 
way  —  so  much  so  that  even  its  ordinary  administrative  measures 
may  be  set  aside  —  is  the  Assembly,  as  against  which  the  Coun- 
cil possesses  hardly  a  shred  of  constitutional  prerogative.  In  the 
Assembly  is  vested  ultimate  authority,  and  in  the  event  of  a 
clash  of  policies,  what  the  Assembly  orders  the  Council  performs. 
The  relation  between  the  executive  and  legislative  branches  of 
the  government  is  quite  as  close  as  it  is  in  a  cabinet  system ; 
but  it  is  a  relation  of  a  totally  different  sort.3 

The  functions  of  the  Council  are  executive,  legislative,  and 
judicial.  On  the  executive  side  it  is  the  duty  of  the  body  to 
"  execute  the  laws  and  resolutions  of  the  Confederation  and  the 
judgments  of  the  Federal  Court;"  to  watch  over  the  external 
interests  of  the  republic  and  to  manage  foreign  relations ;  to 
safeguard  the  welfare,  external  and  internal,  of  the  state;    to 

1  Members  of  the  Council  are  re-elected,  almost  as  a  matter  of  course,  as  long  as 
they  are  willing  to  serve.  Between  1848  and  1893  the  average  period  of  service  ex- 
ceeded ten  years.     Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  II,  203. 

2  The  resignation,  in  1891,  of  M.  Welti,  a  member  of  the  Council  since  1867, 
because  the  people  rejected  his  project  for  government  purchase  of  railway  shares 
caused  general  consternation. 

3  For  interesting  observations  upon  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  the 
Swiss  system  see  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  II,  204-208.  Sea  also  Vincent, 
Government  in  Switzerland,  Chap,  xvi;  Dupriez,  Lcs  ministrcs,  II,  1SS-203. 


6oo  G0\  ERNM]  NTS   01     El  ROPE 

make  such  appointments  as  are  nol  intrusted  to  any  other  agi 

Iminister  the  national  finances,  frame  and  introduce  the 
budget,  and  submit  ai  i  ounts  oi  receipt  -  and  expenses  ;  to  super- 
vise the  conduct  of  all  federal  officers  and  employees ;  to  enforce 
the  observance  of  t  he  federal  constituti  m  and  the  guaranty  of  the 
cantonal  constitutions;  and  to  manage  the  federal  military  estab- 
lishment. In  the  domain  of  legislation  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Coun- 
cil to  introduce  bills  and  resolutions  into  the  Federal  Assembly 
and  to  give  it-  opinion  upon  the  proposals  submitted  to  it  by  the 
chambers  or  by  the  cantons;  also  to  submit  to  the  Assembly  at 
each  regular  session  an  account  of  its  own  administration,  to- 
gether with  a  report  upon  the  internal  conditions  and  tl 
relations  of  the  republic.3  The  Council  has  no  veto  upon  the 
Assembly's  measures.  Judicial  functions  are  such  as  arise  from 
the  fact  that  there  are  in  Switzerland  no  administrative  courts, 
so  that  the  varied  kinds  of  administrative  cases  which  have  been 
withheld  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  Tribunal  are  in 
practice  dealt  with  directly  by  the  Federal  Council,  with  appeal, 
as  a  rule,  to  the  Assembly.  This  is  not  an  ideal  arrangement, 
and  an  important  step  toward  a  better  system  was  taken  in  IQ14 
when,  as  has  been  mentioned,  an  amendment  to  the  constitu- 
tion authorized  the  creation  of  an  administrative  court  to  handle 
such  cases  arising  under  federal  administrative  law  as  may  be 
assigned  to  it  by  the  legislature.  Thus  far,  however,  the  court 
has  not  actually  been  set  up.2 

The  Judiciary.  —  In  organization  the  Swiss  federal  judiciary 
is  very  simple;  in  functions  it  is  complex.  It  comprises  but  a 
single  tribunal,  the  Bundesgericht,  or  Federal  Court.  This 
court,  created  in  1848,  consists  to-day  of  twenty-four  judge's  and 
nine  alternates,  all  chosen  by  the  Federal  Assembly  for  a  term  of 
six  years.  Any  citizen  eligible  to  the  National  Council  may  be 
elected  to  the  Federal  Court,  but  it  is  incumbent  upon  the  Assem- 
bly to  take  care  that  all  of  the  three  officially  recognized  languages 
—  German,  French,  and  Italian  —  are  represented.  The  presi- 
dent and  vice-president  of  the  court  are  named  by  the  Assembly, 
for  a  term  of  two  years,  but  the  court  is  authorized  to  organize 

1  Ail.  102.     Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II,  282-2X4;    Dupriez,  I.cs  minis tres, 
225. 
Kit.    113.      Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II,  286.     The  nature  and  functions 
of  the  Swiss  executive  are  treated  bri<  fly  in  Brooks,  Government  ti>ul  Politics  of  Swit- 
zerland, ( 'hap.  \  i  and  Vincent,  Government  in  Switzerland,  Chap,  icvii.     An  ezcellenl 
account  is  Dupriez,  Let  ministres,  II.  '  >i"  value  are  Blumer  and 

Handbuch  des  schweizerischen  Bundesstaaisrechls,  III.    ,\  92,  and   Dubs,  l.<  droit 
>!>  !ii  confederation  suissc,  II,  77-105. 


THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  .601 

its  own  secretariat  and  to  appoint  the  officials  thereof.  Judges 
are  forbidden  to  sit  in  either  house  of  the  federal  legislature,  to 
occupy  any  other  office,  or  to  engage  in  any  alien  pursuit  or  pro- 
fession. Their  yearly  salary  is  15,000  francs.  Since  1874  the 
seat  of  the  court  has  been  Lausanne,  in  the  French-speaking 
province  of  Vaud. 

The  original  jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  Court  covers  not  only 
ordinary  civil  and  criminal  cases  but  also  suits  between  the 
federation  and  the  cantons ;  between  the  federation  and  corpora- 
tions or  individuals,  when  such  corporations  or  individuals 
appear  as  plaintiffs,  and  when  the  amount  involved  exceeds  three 
thousand  francs  ;  between  cantons ;  and  between  cantons  and 
corporations  or  individuals,  upon  request  of  the  parties,  and  when 
the  amount  involved  exceeds  three  thousand  francs.  The  con- 
stitution authorizes  the  federation  to  enlarge,  by  legislation,  the 
powers  of  the  Court ; x  and  from  time  to  time  a  variety  of  specific 
fields  of  civil  jurisdiction  have  been  opened  to  it,  including  trans- 
portation, debt,  and  bankruptcy.  In  addition  to  original  juris- 
diction in  all  matters  that  have  been  named,  the  Court  is  required 
by  the  constitution  to  exercise  appellate  jurisdiction  in  cases 
carried  on  appeal,  by  mutual  consent  of  the  parties,  from  the 
cantonal  courts.  For  the  adjudication  of  civil  cases  the  Court 
sets  off  from  its  membership  two  chambers  of  eight  judges  each, 
presided  over  respectively  by  the  president  and  vice-president. 
There  is  also  a  chamber  of  three  members  for  the  trial  of  debt 
and  bankruptcy  cases. 

The  tribunal's  criminal  jurisdiction  is  less  extensive.  It  covers, 
in  the  main,  cases  of  high  treason  against  the  republic,  crimes  and 
misdemeanors  against  the  law  of  nations,  political  crimes  and 
misdemeanors  of  such  seriousness  as  to  lead  to  armed  federal  in- 
tervention, and  charges  against  officers  appointed  by  a  federal 
authority,  when  such  authority  makes  application  to  the  Court. 
In  cases  falling  in  any  of  these  categories  the  Court  is  required  to 
employ  a  jury  of  twelve  men  to  decide  questions  of  fact.  With 
the  consent  of  the  Federal  Assembly,  criminal  cases  of  other  kinds 
may  be  referred  to  the  Federal  Court  by  the  cantonal  govern- 
ments. For  the  trial  of  criminal  cases  the  Court  is  divided  each 
year  into  four  chambers,  each  of  five  or  more  judges,  with  two 
alternates.  The  Confederation  is  laid  out  in  three  Assizen- 
bezirke,  or  assize  districts,  and  from  time  to  time  one  of  the 
criminal  chambers  sits  in  each. 

Within  the  domain  of  public  law  the  Court  is  given  cognizance 
1  Art.  114.     Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II,  287. 


6oa  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

of  conflicts  of  jurisdiction  between  federal  and  cantonal  authori- 
ties conflicts  between  cantons  when  arising  out  of  questions  of 
public  law.  complaints  of  violation  of  the  ((institutional  rights  of 
citizens,  and  complaints  of  individuals  by  .reason  of  the  viola- 
tion of  concordats  or  treaties.  In  actual  operation,  the  range  of 
powers  that  would  appear  thus  to  be  i  onferred  is  much  restricted 
by  a  clause  which  declares  that  "  conflicts  <>!'  administrative 
jurisdiction  are  reserved,  and  are  to  be  settled  in  a  manner  pre- 
scribed  by  federal  legislation."1  Legislation  in  pursuance  of 
this  clause  has  withdrawn  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court  a 
long  list  of  possible  subjects  of  litigation.  Like  European  courts 
generally,  the  Swiss  Federal  Court  has  only  limited  power  to 
determine  the  constitutionality  of  law.  It  may  pronounce 
cantonal  laws  null  because  of  being  inconsistent  with  federal 
law  ;  but  it  must  accept  and  apply  all  laws  and  decrees  duly  en- 
acted by  the  Federal  Assembly.  Unlike  the  federal  courts  of  the 
United  States,  the  Swiss  Federal  Court  has  no  means  of  enforcing 
its  decisions.  The  duty  of  enforcement  rests  mainly  upon  the 
cantonal  governments,  with  an  ultimate  responsibility  in  the 
Federal  Council.2 

Two  constitutional  amendments  adopted  in  1898  conferred  on 
the  federal  government  power  to  create  uniform  codes  of  civil 
and  criminal  law.  Formulation  of  a  civil  code  was  at  once  in- 
trusted to  a  legal  scholar  of  Bern.  His  draft  was  worked  over 
in  detail  by  an  expert  and  representative  commission  of  thirty- 
two  members  appointed  by  the  head  of  the  federal  department 
of  justice  and  police,  and  was  given  final  editorial  revision  by  a 
special  commission  of  eight.  The  completed  product  was 
adopted  by  the  Federal  Assembly  in  1907  ;  and  so  well  did  it  meet 
the  popular  desire  that  no  referendum  on  it  was  asked.  In  its 
original  form  the  code  was  in  four  parts,  i.e.,  the  law  of  persons, 
of  marriage,  of  inheritance,  and  of  property.  An  act  of  191 1 
added  a  fifth  part,  dealing  with  the  law  of  obligations.  The 
whole  took  effect  January  1,  191 2}  When  work  on  the  civil 
code  was  well  advanced,  preparation  of  a  criminal  code  was  be- 
gun. The  same  general  plan  was  followed  :  a  single  expert 
prepared  a  trial  draft,  which  was  revised  by  two  successive  com- 
missions. This  code,  arranged  in  three  books  and  431  articles, 
was  ready  in  1917  for  consideration  by  the  Federal  Assembly; 

1  Art.  112.     Dodd,  Mixliin  Constitutions,  II. 
( in  the  federal  judiciary  see  Brooks,  Government  <nul  Politics  of  Switzerland, 
Chap,  vii,  and  Vincent,  Government  in  Switzerland,  Chap.  w. 

1  An  Kn<dish  \  rersioil  of  the  complete  code  is  presented  in  R.  I'.  Schick  (trans.), 
The  S^iss  Civil  Code  of  1907  (Boston,   191 5). 


THE   FEDERAL   GOVERNMENT  603 

and  its  adoption  was  expected  to  follow  as  soon  as  war  conditions 
should  permit  attention  to  be  given  it.  In  contrast  with  the 
United  States,  where  neither  civil  nor  criminal  law  is  uniform, 
and  with  Canada,  where  criminal  law  is  uniform  but  civil  law 
is  not,  Switzerland  has  practically  attained  full  uniformity  in 
both,  thus  approximating  the  status  of  the  former  German  Em- 
pire, where  uniform  criminal  law  dated  from  1869  and  uniform 
civil  law  (except  in  matters  related  to  land  tenure)  from  1900. 

Political  Parties.  —  Two  questions,  chiefly,  dominated  Swiss 
politics  in  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century.  One  was  the 
democratization  of  the  cantonal  governments.  The  other  was 
the  conversion  of  the  loose  and  weak  Confederation  into  a  com- 
pact and  strong  federal  state.  The  first  of  these  objects  was 
largely  attained  between  1830  and  1845  ;  the  second  was  realized 
in  the  adoption  of  the  federal  constitution  of  1848.  In  the  main, 
the  people  who  favored  democracy  also  favored  a  closer  union ; 
and  it  was  these  people,  the  Liberals,  who  were  responsible  for 
the  creation  of  the  new  Switzerland  of  1848,  and  who  also  long 
remained  in  control  of  the  system  which  they  had  set  up.  Op- 
posed to  them  were  the  elements  which,  speaking  broadly,  were 
reactionary  in  local  politics,  Catholic  in  religion,  and  "federalist  " 
as  opposed  to  "  centralist"  in  national  policy.1  For  some  years, 
therefore,  after  1848  there  were  but  two  parties,  the  Liberals 
and  the  Clericals,  commonly  known  as  the  Catholic  Conserva- 
tives ;  and  the  principal  political  questions  centered  in  the  broad 
issue  of  state  rights. 

The  Catholic  Conservatives  have  had  an  unbroken  career  to 
this  day,  although  naturally  with  considerable  shifting  of  policies. 
But  the  old  Liberal  party  is  now  only  a  shadow  of  its  former 
self.  Very  soon  after  1848  a  cleavage  appeared  in  its  ranks  be- 
tween a  moderate  element  and  a  radical  element ;  and  as  new, 
and  especially  social  and  economic  issues,  arose,  the  latter  ele- 
ment steadily  gained  at  the  expense  of  the  former,  until  by  1870 
it  broke  entirely  away  and  set  up  as  a  new  Radical  party.  It  was 
this  new  party  that  revised  the  national  constitution  in  1874  and 
that,  despite  the  opposition  of  the  old-line  Liberals,  who  clung 
to  purely  representative  institutions,  wrote  into  that  instru- 
ment the  provision  for  the  federal  optional  referendum.  After 
this  triumph,  the  Radicals  never  lost  their  primacy,  notwith- 
standing the  rise  of  the  Socialists,  who  sprang  originally  from  the 

1  It  will  be  observed  that,  contrary  to  usage  in  early  decades  in  the  United 
States,  the  term  "federalist"  was  applied  to  the  opponents  of  a  close,  centralized 
union.     The  Swiss  usage  was,  of  course,  the  more  accurate. 


GOVERNMENTS  01     EUROPE 

Radical  ranks,  and  who  even  by  [890  were  abl<    to    ecure  six 

,it  3  in  the  National  Council. 

The  parties  of  the  present  da)  are,  therefore,  enumerating 
from  Right  to  Left,  and  taking  no  account  of  certain  propagan- 
dist associations,  (1)  Catholic  Conservativi  Liberal 
Democrats,  (3)   Independent   Democrats,  or  Radicals,  and 

ial  Democrats.'  The  Catholic  Conservative  party  has  for 
its  fundamental  objeel  the  defense  of  the  Catholic  church  and 
the  promotion  of  the  special  interests  of  the  Catholic  population. 
Without  pressing  them  so  far,  it  <  lings  to  the  state  rights  doctrines 
that  underlay  the  Soiidcrbutid  war  of  1847;  although,  under 
impetus  supplied  by  a  Christian  Socialist  organization  of  Catholic 
workingmen,  it  is  turning  its  attention  more  and  more  to  labor 
legislation  and  related  subjects.  In  Uri,  the  Unterwaldens,  and 
the  Appenzells  the  party  occupies  the  field  almost  alone;  in  a 
dozen  other  cantons  of  mixed  Catholic  and  Protestant  popula- 
tion it  holds  its  own  very  successfully  against  its  rivals.  No 
other  party  is,  indeed,  so  compact,  harmonious,  or  well  organ- 
ized. The  Liberal  Democrats  have  fallen  upon  evil  days,  and 
are  likely  never  to  see  better  ones.  They  comprise  chietly  in- 
dustrial leaders  and  other  men  of  wealth  and  prominence,  men 
of  cautious  disposition,  who  are  interested  mainly  in  economic 
subjects,  and  who  take  pride  in  upholding  as  best  they  can  the 
ancient  principle  of  laissez-faire  as  opposed  to  the  modern  pater- 
nalistic trend.  The  party's  strength  lies  mainly  in  the  cantons 
of  Vaud,  Geneva,  Urban  Basel,  and  Neuchatel. 

The  Radical  party  is  distinctively  the  party  of  centralization, 
anti-clericalism,  and  direct  popular  government.  Its  member- 
ship is  the  largest,  the  most  widely  diffused,  and  the  most  repre- 
sentative ;  it  includes  practically  all  of  the  leaders  of  industry 
and  finance  who  are  not  Liberals,  and  it  has  the  support  of  the 
bulk  of  the  peasantry,  at  all  events  in  the  Protestant  cantons. 
Being  so  comprehensive,  it  is  heterogeneous;  yet  its  internal 
contrasts  have  never  seriously  jeopardized  its  preponderance. 
The  Social  Democrats,  who  are  found  mainly  in  such  manufactur- 
ing cities  as  Zurich,  Basel,  and  Bern,  and  who,  in  general,  share 
the  views  of  their  comrades  in  other  lands,  especially  (icrmany, 
have  gained  considerable  numerical  strength.  Switzerland, 
however,  is  a  poorer  field  for  socialistic  propaganda  than  most 
other  European  countries.     It  is  true  that  collective  ownership 

1  It  is  significant  of  the  moderation  of  S\\i->  politics,  however,  that  members  are 
not  seated  according  to  this  arrangement  in  tin-  two  legislative  halls,  hut  rather  ac- 
cording to  the  part  of  the  country  from  which  they  come. 


THE   FEDERAL   GOVERNMENT 


60  ' 


and  control  of  the  great  industries  has  made  much  headway. 
But  this  has  not  come  about  as  a  result  of  socialist  influence, 
and  the  people  understand  that  they  can  go  as  far  as  they  like 
in  this  direction  without  enlisting  under  the  socialist  banner. 
Furthermore,  the  proportion  of  petty  landed  proprietors  and  other 
small  property  holders  is  too  large  to  admit  of  opportunity  for 
socialist  advances  such  as  have  been  realized  in  Germany,  Italy, 
and  elsewhere. 

For  many  years  after  1874  no  party  could  command  a  clear 
majority  in  either  branch  of  the  Federal  Assembly.  The  Radi- 
cals, having  a  substantial  plurality,  were  usually  able,  however, 
to  have  their  own  way.  To  this  day,  they  rarely  or  never  have 
a  majority  in  the  Council  of  States,  because  of  the  considerable 
proportion  of  cantons  that  regularly  return  Catholic  Conserva- 
tives. But  they  now  have  a  majority,  and  far  more,  in  the  Na- 
tional Council.  The  relative  strength  of  the  parties  in  the  two 
chambers  immediately  prior  to  the  national  elections  of  Decem- 
ber, 191 7,  was  as  follows  : x 


Party 

Council  of 

States 

National 
Council 

Independent  Democrats  (Radicals) 
Minor  parties  and  independents 

16 

I 

21 

I 

5 

39 
I3- 
10S 
18 
11 

Total 

44 

189 

Foreign  observers  invariably  remark  upon  the  stability  of  Swiss 
political  parties  and  upon  the  orderliness  and  quiet  of  Swiss 
political  life.  Except  the  Social  Democrats,  no  new  party  of 
importance  has  come  into  the  field  since  1874.     Nor  has  there 

1  Brooks,  Government  and  Polities  of  Switzerland,  303.  Party  strength  in  the 
National  Council  following  the  election  of  1878  was  :  Catholic  Conservatives,  35 ; 
Liberals,  31 ;  Radicals,  69.  After  the  election  of  1881  it  was:  Catholic  Conserva- 
tives, 36  ;  Liberals,  26;  Radicals,  83.  The  six  triennial  elections  between  1884 
and  1902  produced  no  important  change  in  these  proportions,  although  beginning 
in  1890  the  Social  Democrats  regularly  obtained  a  small  quota  of  seats.  After 
the  census  of  1900  the  number  of  members  of  the  Council  was  raised  from  147  to 
167,  and  the  results  of  the  election  of  1902  were  as  follows  :  Catholic  Conservatives, 
35;  Liberals,  25;  Radicals,  97;  Social  Democrats,  9 ;  Independents,  1.  In  1905 
the  Radicals,  who  until  then  had  cooperated  with  the  Social  Democrats  in  many 
constituencies,  broke  with  them  upon  the  question  of  military  policy,  with  the  re- 
sult that  the  Social  Democratic  contingent  in  the  Council  was  cut  to  two.  In  1908 
and  191 1  the  Social  Democrats  made,  however,  some  recovery. 


Oof)  GO\  ERNMEN  l>   01    El  ROPE 

been,  in  this  period,  any  notable  change  in  the  status  of  the  older 
parties,  aside  from  the  slow  augmentation  of  Radical  strength. 
Sudden  party  shifts  break-ups,  re-groupings,  unprecedented 
victories  such  as  are  common  enough  in  other  Lands  arc  un- 
known. "  Counting  the  Radicals  of  to-day,"  says  a  recent  writer, 
in  outgrowth  from  the  Liberals  of  a  generation  ago,  it  may 
be  said  that  the  republic  has  been  under  the  control  of  a  single 
-party  from  its  foundation  in  1X4X."  Party  life  is  vigorous,  party 
organization  strong,  and  party  influence  considerable.  Yel 
party  activity  is  subdued  and  party  rivalry  comparatively  free 
from  bitterness.  For  this  state  of  things  the  more  remark- 
able when  one  recalls  the  keenness  of  factional  strife  and  the  fre- 
quency of  civil  war  in  earlier  times  several  explanations  sug- 
gest themselves.  There  is  little  federal  patronage  to  whet  the 
party  appetite.  There  is  practically  no  body  of  unattached 
voters  which  the  parties  can  strive  to  attract.  The  people  do 
not  elect  the  federal  executive.  The  referendum  and  initiative 
operate  on  essentially  non-partisan  lines.1  Legislative  sessions 
arc  brief.  Finally,  professional  politicians  are  almost  unknown. 
In  organization,  the  parties  are  very  similar.  All  are,  in  effect. 
unions  of  partly  autonomous  party  groups.  The  supreme 
authority  is  a  diet,  which  meets  at  least  once  a  year,  and  is  com- 
posed of  delegates,  three  or  four  hundred  in  number  in  the  case 
of  the  larger  parties,  representing  the  local  organizations.  The 
business  of  the  diet  is  to  hear  reports  of  the  party  officials,  scru- 
tinize the  actions  of  the  party's  representatives  in  the  Federal 
Assembly  and  the  Federal  Council,  and  adopt  resolutions,  fol- 
lowing discussion,  for  the  guidance  of  the  party's  spokesmen  and 
covering  all  of  the  important  issues  of  the  day.  The  diet  docs 
not  make  nominations.  Candidates  for  the  Federal  Council  are 
named,  rather,  by  caucuses  participated  in  by  the  party  members 
in  the  legislative  houses;  candidates  for  the  Council  of  States 
(where  the  people  elect)  and  for  the  National  Council  are  selected 
by  local  caucuses  in  which,  theoretically  at  least,  all  of  the  party 
members  take  part.  To  carry  on  the  work  of  the  party  during 
the  intervals  between  meetings  of  the  diet,  a  central  committee 
usually  of  thirty  to  fifty  members,  is  elected,  either  by  the 
cantonal  organizations  or  by  the  diet  itself;  and  this  committee 
has  a  president,  secretary,  and  treasurer,  besides,  ordinarily, 
a  sub-committee  which  can  meet  more  frequently  and  act  in 
the  general  committee's  stead.  Party  organization,  therefore 
closely  reflects  the  organization  of  the  state  itself.  It  is  built 
1  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  II,  314-332. 


THE   FEDERAL   GOVERNMENT  607 

on  the  twin  principles  of  federalism  and  democracy ;  and  it  is 
no  exaggeration  to  say  that  party  spirit  and  methods  are  on  a 
plane  which  has  been  reached  in  few  other  countries.1 

1  For  brief  accounts  of  Swiss  political  parties  see  Brooks,  Government  and  Politics 
of  Switzerland,  Chap,  xiii ;  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  II,  Chap,  xiii ;  J.  Macy, 
"The  Swiss  and  their  Politics,"  in  Amer.  Jour,  of  Soc.,  July,  1896.  A  valuable 
monograph  is  G.  Chaudet,  Histoirc  dn  parti  radical  Suisse  (Bern,  191 7). 


4.  Germany 
CHAPTER    XXXIV 

THE   HOHENZOLLERN    EMPIRE    AND    ITS    CONSTITUTION 

The  German  Political  Heritage.  "  Liberty,  that  incompa- 
rable blessing,"  wrote  Montesquieu  in  the  eighteenth  century, 
"was  discovered  in  the  wild  forests  of  Germany."  Like  mosl 
glittering  statements,  this  is  but  a  half-truth.  Before  the  Ger- 
manic peoples  are  heard  of  in  history  very  substantial  liberty 
was  attained  in  the  Greek  world,  and  to  a  less  extent  among  the 
early  Romans.  None  the  less,  by  all  accounts  the  Germanic 
peoples  who,  between  the  fifth  and  tenth  centuries,  poured  into  the 
lands  we  now  know  as  England,  France,  Italy,  and  Spain,  and  there 
contributed  powerfully  to  the  creation  of  new  racial  stocks  and 
new  political  forms,  were  above  all  things  jealous  of  their  personal, 
family,  and  tribal  freedom.  Similarly  notable  for  their  strong 
sense  of  independence  were  the  kinsmen  who  remained  north  of 
the  old  Rhine-Danube  frontier  and  became  the  direct  ancestors 
of  the  Bavarian^,  Badeners,  Wurttembcrgcrs,  and  Prussians  of 
the  present  day.     It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  these  peoples 

-Franks,  Saxons,  Burgundians,  and  later  Norsemen  —  would, 
en  account  of  their  impatience  of  restriction,  set  up,  in  either  their 
old  or  their  new  homes,  republican  governments.  Wholly  apart 
from  the  consideration  that  republican  government  calls  for  a 
high  degree  of  political  experience  and  capacity,  the  conditions 
of  disorder,  war,  conquest,  and  feudal  rivalry  prevailing  through- 
out the  Middle  Ages  made  inevitable  the  development  of  king- 
ship and,  indeed,  the  gathering  of  governmental  power  largely  into 
autocratic  hands.  In  England,  however,  this  development  never 
went  so  far  as  to  extinguish  all  popular  elements  in  the  control 
of  public  policy  and  I  lie  administration  of  public  business.  Even 
under  the  strong  government  of  the  Norman-Angevin  kings, 
the  representative  principle  made  steady  headway  in  justice 
and  finance,  and  gained  a  footing  which  enabled  it  presently  to 
become  the  cornerstone  of  the  scheme  of  national  legislation. 
In  France  likewise  —  although   the  popular  element  failed   to 

608 


THE  HOHENZOLLERN   EMPIRE  609 

maintain  itself  as  a  working  factor  outside  the  domain  of  local 
affairs  —  the  idea  that  the  people  should  have  a  voice  in  the 
determination  of  national  policy  repeatedly  flared  up,  notably 
during  the  Hundred  Years'  War  (1340-1453),  and  again  in  the 
eighteenth  century. 

The  Germany  of  the  later  Middle  Ages  and  of  early  modern 
times  was  by  no  means  without  manifestations  of  a  surviving 
spirit  of  liberalism.  At  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century  there 
were  vigorous  attempts  to  reorganize  the  Holy  Roman  Empire 
(now  consisting  practically  of  the  German  states)  on  a  more 
popular  basis.  During  the  Lutheran  Revolt  certain  elements, 
especially  the  peasants  of  the  south,  loudly  demanded  freer  forms 
of  government.1  In  the  eighteenth  century  the  most  illustrious 
and  influential  of  Prussian  kings,  Frederick  the  Great,  wrote 
three  treatises  admonishing  his  brother  princes  that  they  were 
not  in  their  positions  by  any  special  favor  of  God,  assuring  them 
that  the  only  justification  of  their  occupancy  of  their  thrones 
was  the  contribution  that  they  could  make  to  the  welfare  of  their 
subjects,  scoffing  at  the  prevailing  notion  that  the  people  were 
merely  the  private  property  of  the  prince,  and  sharply  attacking 
the  Machiavellian  doctrine  that  the  ruler  is  not  to  be  bound 
by  the  ordinary  principles  of  morality  in  promoting  the  ends  of 
the  state.  The  practical  effect  of  these  various  movements 
and  arguments,  however,  was  nil.  The  effort  to  put  the  Empire 
on  a  more  popular  basis  totally  failed.  The  peasant  reformers 
of  1524  were  ruthlessly  suppressed,  Luther  himself  openly  en- 
couraging the  princes  in  the  bloody  business.  There  is  no  record 
that  any  ruler  was  led  to  mend  his  ways  by  Frederick's  lecturings  ; 
while  the  latter,  by  a  remarkable  series  of  high-handed  acts 
during  his  prolonged  reign  (1740-86)  cast  grave  doubts  upon  his 
own  sincerity. 

The  condition  in  which  Germany  came  down  to  the  nineteenth 
century  was,  indeed,  deplorable.  The  Holy  Roman  Empire 
lost  all  vitality,  and  the  German-speaking  world  was  left  without 
the  semblance  of  unity.  The  three  hundred  or  more  states  were 
ruled  by  despots,  petty  and  great,  who  cynically  disregarded  all 
demands  for  popular  participation  in  government  and  ferociously 
resisted  all  suggestions  that  they  should  subordinate  their  in- 
terests to  those  of  a  united  nation.  Economic  life  was  shackled 
by  a  network  of  gild,  town,  provincial,  and  royal  regulations. 
Half  of  the  people  were  serfs.  Militarism  and  bureaucracy 
blocked  every  avenue  of  reform ;  popular  ignorance  and  apathy 
1  See  E.  B.  Bax,  The  Peasant's  War  in  Germany  (London,  1899). 


Gio  GO\  ERNMEN  rS   OF    EI  R< 

were,  if  possible,  even  greater  obsta<  les.  All  told,  the  political 
heritage  which  the  German  people  carried  into  the  new  century 
afforded  scant  basis  for  governmental  development  of  the  sort 
h  already  was  far  advanced  in  England,  and  which  had  been 
so  dramatically  inaugurated  in  the  pasl  decade  in  France. 

Autocracy  versus  Liberalism,  1815  48.  -Interest  in  Ger- 
man political  history  in  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century 
centers  around  two  interrelated  movements,  the  one  looking 
toward  national  unity,  the  other  toward  constitutional  govern- 
ment. The  period  of  the  Napoleonic  wars  made-  some  contribu- 
tion in  both  directions.  The  ground  was  cleared  for  a  future 
unification,  first  by  the  extinction  of  more  than  five  sixths  of  the 
petty  states  of  earlier  times,  and  second,  by  the  replacing  of 
the  nondescript  and  obsolete  Holy  Roman  Empire  (terminated 
by  decree  of  Napoleon  in  1806)  by  a  German  Confederation 
created  by  the  Congress  of  Vienna  in  1814  15.1  It  is  true 
that  the  immediate  effect  of  reducing  the  number  of  states  was 
merely  to  strengthen  the  surviving  kingdoms  and  duchies  and 
stiffen  them  against  any  attempt  to  establish  an  effective  com- 
mon control.  It  is  true,  also,  that  the  new  Confederation,  whose 
Bundestag,  or  Diet,  was  hardly  more  than  a  congress  of  ambas- 
sadors, was  so  weak  as  to  be  ridiculous.  Nevertheless,  if  the 
German-speaking  world  was  ever  to  be  united,  the  number  of 
independent  states  must  be  gradually  reduced,  and  a  common 
German  government  must  be  set  up,  which,  although  at  first 
a  sham,  might  be  capable  of  conversion  by  degrees  into  a  reality. 

The  contribution  of  the  Napoleonic  period  to  the  cause  of 
liberal  government  in  Germany  took  the  form  chiefly  of  a  great 
Prussian  Municipal  Edict  of  1808  sweeping  away  the  gild  oli- 
garchies, broadening  the  suffrage,  and  setting  up  elective  execu- 
tive boards  and  town  councils,  at  the  same  time  giving  the  mu- 
nicipalities a  larger  degree  of  independence  in  the  management 
of  their  own  affairs.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Baron  von 
Stein,  who  was  the  author  of  this  reform,  desired  to  introduce 
the  representative  principle  in  the  central,  as  well  as  the  local, 
government ;  and  he  proposed  a  national  elective  congress  with 
fairly  extensive  legislative  powers.  But  the  plan  met  with  no 
favor  in  princely  circles.2 

1  In  anticipation  of  the  prospective  abolition  of  the  dignity  of  Emperor  of  the 
Holy  Roman  Umpire,  the  Emperor  Francis  I!,  in  1804,  assumed  the  title  of  Em- 
peror  of  Austria,  under  the  name  Francis  I. 

-On  Germany  during  the  Napoleonic  period  see  Cambridge  Modern  History, 

IX,  Chap,  xi ;  J.  FI.  Rose,  Life  of  Napoleon  I  (new  ed.,  New  York,  1910),  II,  Chaps. 

\  ;    A.  Fournier,   Napoleon  1    a  Biography,  trans,  by  A.  E.  Adams  1  \<   . 


THE   HOHENZOLLERN   EMPIRE  611 

The  Germany  of  1815  was,  then,  a  confederation  of  thirty- 
eight  practically  independent  states,1  united  under  the  perpetual 
presidency  of  Austria,  having  no  common  organ  of  discussion 
except  an  impotent  Diet,  and  having  no  common  administrative 
authority  at  all.  Government  was  in  all  cases  autocratic,  and 
the  outlook  for  both  national  unity  and  political  liberty  was 
dark.  During  the  next  three  decades  substantial  economic 
solidarity  was  attained  through  the  building  up,  under  Prussian 
leadership,  of  a  great  Zollverein,  or  Customs  Union ;  and  this 
made  political  unification  in  later  days  somewhat  easier.  But 
liberalism  advanced  slowly,  and  with  much  difficulty.  The 
Final  Act  of  the  Congress  of  Vienna  (181 5)  provided  not  only 
that  "  diets  should  be  held  in  the  various  federal  states  "  of 
Germany,  but  that  all  of  the  members  of  the  Confederation 
should  promulgate  written  constitutions.  Beginning  in  1816, 
constitutions  were  actually  granted  in  one  state  after  another 
—  fundamental  laws  which  in  a  number  of  instances  continued 
in  operation  until  the  close  of  the  Great  War.2  But  most  of 
these  instruments  were  illiberal ;  none  were  based  upon  the  doc- 
trine of  popular  sovereignty  ;  and  the  two  most  important  states, 
Austria  and  Prussia,  granted  no  constitutions  at  all.  Through- 
out Germany  there  were  numbers  of  men  of  liberal  inclination 
who  wanted  not  only  written  constitutions  but  parliaments  with 
real  powers,  and  an  end  of  absolutism ;  and  the  disappointment 
of  these  elements  found  expression  in  numerous  outbursts  at  the 
universities  and  in  more  or  less  violent  demonstrations  in  other 
quarters.  The  malign  influence  of  the  reactionary  Austrian 
minister,  Prince  Metternich,  rested,  however,  like  a  blanket 
upon  all  central  Europe,  and  liberalism  was  effectually  crushed 
wherever  it  dared  show  its  head.     The  Prussian  king,  Frederick 

York,  191 1),  I,  Chaps,  xi-xii ;  J.  R.  Seeley,  Life  and  Times  of  Stein;  or  Germany 
and  Prussia  in  the  Napoleonic  Age,  3  vols.  (Cambridge,  1878) ;  and  H.  A.  L.  Fisher, 
Studies  in  Napoleonic  Statesmanship,  Germany  (Oxford,  1903). 

1  In  181 7  the  number  was  brought  up  to  39  by  the  adding  of  Hesse-Homburg, 
unintentionally  omitted  when  the  original  list  was  made  up.  By  successive  changes 
the  number  was  reduced  to  S3  before  the  dissolution  of  the  Confederation  in  1866. 

2  The  new  era  of  constitution-making  was  inaugurated  by  the  promulgation  of 
the  fundamental  law  of  Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt,  January  8,  1816.  Similar 
grants  followed  in  rapid  succession,  in  Schaumburg-Lippe,  January  15,  1816;  YVal- 
deck,  April  19,  1816;  the  grand-duchy  of  Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach,  May  5,  1816; 
Saxe-Hildburghausen,  March  19,  1818;  Bavaria,  May  26,  1818;  Baden,  August 
22,  1818;  Lichtenstein,  November  9,  1818;  Wiirttemberg,  September  25,  1819; 
Hanover,  December  7,  1819;  Brunswick,  April  25,  1820,  and  the  grand-duchy 
of  Hesse,  December  17,  1820.  Instruments  promulgated  later  during  the  period 
under  review  include  those  of  Saxe-Meiningen,  in  1829;  Hesse-Cassel,  Saxe-Alten- 
burg,  and  Saxony,  in  1831 ;  Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen,  in  1833;  Lippe,  in  1836; 
and  Liibeck,  in  1846. 


612  G0VERNM1  NTS   01     El  ROPE 

William  III.  repeatedly  promised  to  give  a  written  constitution 
to  his  people  and  to  convoke  the  old  "estates,"  or  "orders," 
with  a  view  to  the  creation  of  a  national  assembly.  Hut  the  y<  ars 
passed  and  neither  thing  was  done.  The  most  that  the  reaction- 
ary monarch  could  bring  himself  to  do  was  to  create  local  diets 
in  each  of  the  eighl  provinces  of  the  kingdom.  In  1S47  his  son, 
Frederick  William  IV,  went  so  far  as  to  summon  a  Vereinigter 
Landtag,  or  "  United  I  )iet,"  comprising  all  members  of  the  provin- 
cial assemblies,  and  organized  in  two  chambers  a  house  of 
lords  and  a  house  containing  the  three  estates  of  the  knights. 
burghers,  and  peasants.  But  when  the  members  fell  to  discussing 
constitutions  and  legislative  privileges  the  king  reminded  them 
that  he  was  better  able  to  judge  political  institutions  than  they 
were  and  sent  them  home,  \e\er,  he  declared,  would  he  allow 
"  to  come  between  Almighty  God  in  heaven  and  this  land  a 
blotted  parchment,  to  rule  us  with  paragraphs,  and  to  replace 
the  ancient,  sacred  bond  of  loyalty." 

The  Liberal  Failure  of  1848.  —  Shortly  before  the  middle  of 
the  century  Germany,  and  in  particular  the  kingdom  of  Prussia, 
came  to  the  parting  of  the  political  ways.  Liberalism,  driven 
to  cover  in  the  first  decade  following  the  restoration  of  181 5, 
had  none  the  less  deepened  and  broadened,  and  awaited  only  a 
favorable  opportunity  to  demonstrate  its  real  strength.  In 
the  smaller  states  of  the  south  it  was  fighting  kings  and  minis- 
ters on  practically  even  terms;  in  Prussia  it  had  permeated  the 
masses  to  a  degree  undreamt  of  in  1815 ;  even  in  reactionary 
Austria  it  had  stirred  the  populace  of  Vienna  and  other  cities, 
and  had  roused  the  subject  nationalities  to  fresh  protests  and 
demonstrations.  Not  all  liberals  were  agreed  upon  a  program  ; 
and  this  fact  proved  their  undoing  when  their  opportunity 
came.  Originally  the  most  that  they  hoped  for,  or  indeed 
desired,  was  constitutional  monarchy;  and  in  1848  the  larger 
portion  would  still  have  been  satisfied  with  that  form  of  govern- 
ment, providing  a  flexible  constitution  should  leave  the  way  open 
for  such  redistributions  of  power  as  might  prove  desirable.  But 
there  was  now  an  advanced  wing  of  the  party  which  demanded 
nothing  less  than  a  republic,  and  in  many  cases  some  sort  of 
socialistic  organization  of  the  state  as  well.  "  There  was,  indeed, 
a  painful  lack  of  unity  and  distinctness  in  the  political  ideals  of 
the  reformers.  Some  wished  to  include  German  Austria  in  the 
new  state,  others  to  exclude  it;    some  dreamed  of  a  revival  of 

>ld  Empire  in  a  modern  vesture  of  constitutional  right 
liberties,  others  of  a  central  directory  ;  some  thought  of  the  ( rer 


THE  HOHENZOLLERN   EMPIRE  613 

many  of  the  future  as  a  federation  upon  the  American  model, 
others  as  a  strong  and  united  republic ;  but  the  great  central 
body  of  the  nation,  holding  that  no  project  could  succeed  with- 
out the  support  of  the  princely  governments,  did  not  advance 
beyond  the  conception  of  a  federation  of  constitutional  monar- 
chies."1 Professors,  students,  poets,  philosophers,  scattered 
knots  of  artisans  nowhere  very  numerous  save  in  Baden  and  the 
Bavarian  Palatinate  —  these  were  the  chief  exponents  of  the 
democratic  ideal. 

The  event  that  brought  matters  to  a  head  was  the  revolution 
at  Paris  which  overwhelmed  Louis  Philippe's  government  in 
February,  1848.  Within  a  month  a  third  of  all  Germany  was 
in  turmoil.  The  princes,  in  a  panic,  began  making  concessions 
right  and  left,  and  when  a  Vorparlament,  convened  at  Frank- 
fort, called  upon  the  states  to  send  delegates  to  a  special  con- 
vention to  revise  the  Act  of  Federation  of  18 15  "  on  really  na- 
tional lines,"  no  strong  objection  was  interposed.  The  parlia- 
ment which  met  in  the  Pauluskirche  at  Frankfort,  May  18,  1848, 
in  response  to  this  invitation  was  a  body  such  as  Germany  had 
never  seen  before.  Its  586  members  were  elected  by  manhood 
suffrage,  one  for  every  fifty  thousand  inhabitants,  and  represented 
all  the  lands  from  the  Vosges  to  the  Vistula,  and  from  the  Baltic 
to  the  Alps.  There  were  no  princes  or  princes'  delegates ;  and 
the  body  was  immune  from  governmental  interference.  Stated 
simply,  the  problem  to  be  worked  out  was,  how  to  convert  a  loose 
confederation  of  despotically  governed  principalities  into  a  con- 
stitutional, liberal,  federal  state.  Compared  with  this,  the 
task  of  our  own  constitutional  convention  at  Philadelphia  in 
1787  was  easy,  and  we  should  not  censure  too  severely  the  men 
who  failed  to  find  the  right  solution. 

But  they  were  partly  at  fault.  In  the  first  place,  they  allowed 
their  differences  of  view  (they  fell  into  at  least  eleven  distinct 
"  parties  ")  to  involve  them  in  unnecessary  conflicts,  often  over 
irrelevant  matters.  In  the  second  place,  being  largely  idealists 
and  enthusiasts,  they  were  swayed  too  much  by  theory  and  not 
enough  by  fact.  In  the  third  place,  they  ignored  the  big,  essen- 
tial difficulty,  i.e.,  the  rival  ambitions  of  Austria  and  Prussia 
—  failure  to  remove  which,  as  one  writer  has  said,  "  cost  Germany 
two  great  wars,  the  Bismarckian  regime,  and  its  present  constitu- 
tion." Finally,  the  members  seem  to  have  been  oblivious  to 
the  flight  of  time.  The  upshot  was  that  by  the  time  when,  in 
1849,  the  parliament  brought  forward  its  plan,  the  princes  had 

1  Fisher,  Republican  Tradition  in  Europe,  259. 


6]  \  GOVERNMEN  rS   OF    El  ROPE 

largely  suppn  ir  rebellious  subjects  and  were  in  a  position 

to  frown  down  the  new  scheme.  Notwithstanding  that  there 
were  two  hundred  men  in  the  convention  who  railed  themselves 
republii  ans,  the  plan  provided  for  a  constitutional  empire,  with  a 
parliament  of  two  houses,  direct  manhood  suffrage,  and  a  respon- 
sible ministry. 

It  fell  to  Frederick  William  IV  of  Prussia  to  administer  the  fatal 
blow  by  refusing  the  new  imperial  crown  when  the  parliament 
solemnly  tendered  it  to  him.  Crown.-,  he  said,  were  for  him 
and  his  peers  to  give,  not  to  take  from  any  gathering  of  mere 
commoners;  although  it  is  not  unlikely  that  his  decision  was 
dictated  chiefly  by  his  desire  to  avert  a  war  with  Austria.  The 
project  was  approved  by  a  large  majority  of  the  states,  hut  by 
none  of  those — -Austria,  Prussia.  Bavaria,  Saxony,  Wurttem- 
berg-  whose  assent  was  indispensable  to  its  success.  Accord- 
ingly, it  collapsed.  Thus  was  enacted  a  political  tragedy.  For 
never  again,  until  1918,  did  liberalism  have  so  good  an  op- 
portunity to  give  Germany  a  fresh  start  toward  free  end  en- 
lightened government.  Years  afterwards  Bismarck  wrote  that 
even  in  the  most  unsettled  days  of  1848  the  political  situation 
from  his  point  of  view  had  never  been  "  unfavorable,"  since 
the  real  "  barometer  "  of  the  situation  was  not  "  the  noi 
parliaments  great  and  small,"  but  "  the  attitude  of  the  troops."  ' 
It  was,  unfortunately,  through  the  use  of  the  troops  —  by  "  blood 
and  iron  "  —  that  the  Germany  of  our  day  was  destined  to  be 
made. 

Prussian  Autocracy  Assumes  Leadership.  — The  one  tangible- 
gain  coming  from  the  revolutionary  movement  of  1848  in  Ger- 
many was  the  constitution  granted  in  Prussia,  in  1850,  by  Fred- 
erick William  IV.-  Tin's  instrument  was  disappointing  to  tin- 
liberals.  Yet  it  substituted  a  bicameral  parliament  for  the 
outworn  "  estates,"  conferred  the  suffrage  on  a  large  portion  of 
the  adult  male  population,  and  purported  to  guarantee  numer- 
ous individual  liberties.  It  remained  the  fundamental  law  of 
the  Prussian  kingdom  until  after  the  Great   War.8     More  and 

1  Reflations  and  Reminiscences,  I,  66-67. 

-On  the  revolution  of  1848  in  Germany  see  Cambridge  Modern  History.  XI, 
Chaps,  iii,  vi,  vii;  W.  II.  Da  rson,  The  German  Empire,  1867-1914  (New  York, 
.  I,  Chaps,  i-ii;    H.  von  Sybel,  The  Founding  of  the  German  Empire,  trans. 
by  M.  I..  Perrin  (New  York.  1890-98),  I,  145-  243;    IF.  Blum.  Die  deutsche  I 

Florence  and  Leipzig,  [89;  l ;   I'.  Matter,  La  Prusse  et  /<;  rtvohUion 
iris,   1903).     Tin-  libera]  politii  !  of  Oc-rmany  from  Kant  to 

Hegel  i:-  briefly  hut  clearly  described  in  W.  A.  Dunning,  "The  German  Idealists," 
in  Polit.  Sri.  Quar.,  June  and  Sept.,  1913. 
3  See  p.  712. 


THE  HOHENZOLLERN   EMPIRE  615 

more,  after  1850,  the  hopes  of  the  German  patriots  were  centered 
in  Prussia,  as  leader  both  in  national  unification  and  in  the  estab- 
lishment of  liberal  government.  The  only  other  state  in  the  Con- 
federation that  was  of  sufficient  size  and  strength  to  be  a  leader 
was  Austria.  But  Austria,  while  herself  mainly  German,  was  so 
enmeshed  in  racial  complications  that  she  could  never  be  expected 
to  pursue  a  purely  German  policy.  Prussia  was  thoroughly 
German.  Besides,  she  had  not  only  acquired  a  constitution, 
but  had  succeeded,  as  Austria  had  not,  in  building  up  an  economic 
union  (the  Zollverein)  which  afforded  an  obvious  stepping-stone 
to  political  unification.  By  i860  forward-looking  Germans  were 
convinced  that  the  old  Confederation  would  have  to  be  dissolved ; 
that  the  new  Germany  would  have  to  be  the  creation,  not  of  the 
democratic  elements  working  without  the  princes,  but  of  one 
of  the  great  princely  states  ;  and  that  Prussia  was  the  only  state 
prepared  to  play  the  role.  German  unification  —  and  for  a  time 
German  liberalization  as  well  —  became  synonymous  with  Prus- 
sian success.1 

With  the  elevation  of  Otto  von  Bismarck,  in  1862,  to  the 
presidency  of  the  Prussian  ministry,  events  began  to  move  toward 
the  inevitable  conclusion.  Already  King  William  I  —  himself 
a  soldier  to  the  core  —  had  been  seeking  to  reorganize  the  na- 
tional army,  with  a  view  to  making  it  the  strongest  in  western 
Europe.  Opposition  in  the  lower  house  of  Parliament  had 
partially  thwarted  his  plans,  and  he  had  been  on  the  point  of 
abdication  when,  at  the  advice  of  friends,  he  called  in  Bismarck 
and  told  him  to  save  the  situation  if  he  could.  As  a  hater  of 
democracy,  a  believer  in  divine  right,  and  an  ardent  supporter 
of  the  Hohenzollern  dynasty,  the  new  minister  stepped  into  a 
full  control  of  Prussian  affairs  which  was  never  relaxed  until 
the  Emperor  William  II  chose,  in  1890,  to  dispense  with  his 
services.  How  he  told  the  Budget  Committee  of  the  lower 
chamber  that  it  was  "  not  by  speeches  and  resolutions  of  ma- 
jorities, but  by  blood  and  iron  (durch  Blut  und  Eisen),  that  the 
great  questions  of  the  time  were  to  be  decided;  how  he  cajoled, 
threatened,  and  finally  defied,  the  refractory  Fortschrittspartei, 
or  Progressist  majority,  and,  in  order  to  carry  out  the  king's 
plans  for  the  army,  ruled  for  four  years  without  budgets  or  parlia- 
ments ;  how  he  planned  a  war  for  the  ejection  of  Austria  from 
the  Confederation,  and  cynically  began  by  dragging  the  future 
victim,  as  an  ally,  into  war,  in  1864,  with  Denmark ;  how  he  re- 
fused in  1863  to  countenance  a  discussion,  under  Austrian  aus- 
1  Hayes,  Political  and  Social  History  of  Modem  Europe,  II,  180. 


616  GOVERNMEN  rS   OF    EUROPE 

oJ  the  reorganization  of  the  Confederation,  and  then, 
when,  in  [866,  all  was  in  readiness,  threw  a  bombshell  into  the 
political  arena  by  proposing  to  the  Diel  his  own  scheme  of 
reform,  who-,-  mosl  important  features  were  the  exclusion  ol 
Austria  and  the  election  of  a  German  national  parliament  by 
manhood  suffrage;  and  how,  upon  Austria's  inevitable  refusal, 
he  declared  the  Confederation  dissolved  and  hurled  the  Prussian 
army  against  the  tottering  Habsburg  dominion  -all  this  is 
history  which  cannot  be  related  here. 

The  North  German  Confederation  (1867).  —  The  war  of  1866 
was  ihorl  and  victory  decisive.  The  new  Prussian  army  cut  its 
way  into  Austrian  territory  and  practically  broke  down  all  resist- 
ance in  the  one  great  battle  of  Sadowa,  or  Koniggratz.  The 
terms  which  Bismarck  extended  were  far  more  moderate  than 
the  king  and  most  other  Prussians  desired.  But  they  attained 
the  essential  object :  the  proud  Habsburg  monarchy  was  com- 
pelled not  only  to  acknowledge  that  the  old  confederation  was 
no  more,  but  also  to  agree  to  the  establishment  of  a  new  confedera- 
tion north  of  the  river  Main,  which  Prussia  should  lead  and  in 
which  Austria  should  have  no  place.  The  path  was  now  cleared 
for  a  real  German  unification  under  Prussian  Leadership.  Taking 
advantage  of  her  military  triumph  over  the  lesser  states  which 
had  fought  on  the  side  of  Austria,  Prussia  now  annexed  Hanover. 
Hesse-Cassel,  Nassau,  and  Frankfort  (in  addition  to  the  disputed 
duchies  of  Schleswig  and  Holstein),  giving  the  kingdom  five 
million  new  inhabitant-,  and  also  lands,  including  the  future 
naval  base  of  Kiel,  of  the  highest  strategic  value.  In  the  second 
place,  the  Berlin  government  concluded  a  series  of  secret  mili- 
tary alliances  with  the  now  detached  state-  Bavaria,  Baden. 
Wiirttemberg,  and  Hesse-Darmstadt  —  south  of  the  Main; 
these  being  followed  by  economic  agreements  looking  to  the 
early  inclusion  of  the  states  in  the  reorganized  Zollverein. 

Finally,  the  new  and  long-desired  confederation  made  its  ap- 
pearance. As  soon  as  the  terms  of  peace  were  settled,  in  1866, 
Bismarck  invited  the  states  north  of  the  Main  to  send  delegates 
to  Berlin  to  discuss  plans  for  the  union.  All  ac<  epted,  and  the 
delegates  appeared  at  the  Prussian  capital  in  December.  A 
constitution  which  Bismarck  had  himself  drafted  (he  is  reported 
to  have  dictated  it  to  his  secretary  in  a  single  evening)  was 
provisionally  adopted,  February  2,  1867,  and  ten  days  later  a 
"  constituent  Bundestag  "  was  elected,  by  manhood  suffrage 
and  secret  ballot,  to  deliberate  upon  the  instrument.  After 
seven  week-  of  discussion,  this  body  gave  its  approval  by  a  vote 


THE  HOHENZOLLERN   EMPIRE  617 

of  230  to  53.  The  diets  or  parliaments  of  the  twenty-two  states 
then  ratified  the  instrument ;  and  on  July  1  it  went  into  effect. 
The  principles  upon  which  the  system  was  based  were,  in  brief, 
autonomy  for  the  individual  states ;  control  of  foreign  relations 
mainly  by  the  Bund,  or  Confederation ; .  Prussian  supervision 
of  the  military  establishments  in  peace  and  war ;  and  a  limited 
participation  of  the  people  in  decisions  upon  public  policy.  The 
main  organs  of  government  were  four:  (1)  the  Praesidium, 
or  presidency,  to  be  hereditary  in  the  royal  family  of  Prussia ; 
(2)  a  Bundeskanzler,  or  Federal  Chancellor,  to  assist  the  Presi- 
dent ;  (3)  a  Bundesrath,  or  Federal  Council,  composed  of  repre- 
sentatives of  the  governments  of  the  states  ;  and  (4)  a  Bundestag, 
or  Diet,  consisting  of.  deputies  elected  by  direct  vote  of  the 
people,  and  by  manhood  suffrage.  In  this  scheme  appeared  all 
the  essential  features  of  the  later  Imperial  government ;  so  that 
from  1867  the  German  Empire,  under  the  hegemony  of  Prussia, 
was  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  though  not  in  form  or  name,  a 
reality. 

A  question  that  is  likely  to  suggest  itself  is,  why  did  Bis- 
marck, an  ultra-conservative,  include  in  his  scheme  a  popularly 
elected  representative  body?  The  answer  was  given  by  himself 
to  certain  of  his  critics  at  the  time.  The  real  radicals,  he  said, 
belonged  mainly  to  the  middle,  bourgeois  classes  —  the  pro- 
fessors and  other  teachers,  lawyers  and  other  professional  folk, 
traders  and  travelers.  The  masses  bade  fair,  he  thought,  to 
prove  the  actual  conservatives,  the  people  who  would  be  willing 
to  be  led,  the  most  dependable  supporters  of  a  militaristic  state. 
Besides,  the  powers  assigned  to  the  representative  chamber  were 
so  modest  that  not  much  was  being  risked  by  bringing  it  into 
existence.  The  general  state  of  good  feeling  following  the  late 
triumphs,  marked  by  the  resumption  of  normal  parliamentary 
activities  in  Prussia,  and  by  a  vote  of  the  hitherto  obstructionist 
lower  chamber  indemnifying  Bismarck  for  all  his  high-handed 
acts  during  the  past  four  years,  undoubtedly  was  not  without 
effect  upon  the  minister's  policy. 

The  Empire  Established  (1871).  —  For  the  time  being,  the 
states  south  of  the  Main  were  left  to  their  own  devices,  although 
the  constitution  of  the  Bund  was  carefully  shaped  to  permit, 
and  even  to  encourage,  the  accession  of  new  members.  The 
patriotic  fervor  aroused  by  the  war  with  France  in  1870-71 
completed  a  transformation  which  economic  agreements  and 
military  alliances  had  begun.  Contrary  to  the  expectation  of 
Napoleon  III,  the  states  of  the  south  contributed  troops  and 


618  GOVERNMEN  I  3   OF   EUROPE 

otherwise  cooperated  vigorously  with  the  Prussians  throughout 
the  contest,  and  before  it-  close  they  let  it  be  known  that  they 
were  ready  to  become  members  of  the  Confederation.  On  the 
basis  of  treaty  arrangements  concluded  in  November,  1870, 
it  was  agreed  that  the  North  German  Confederation  should 
be  replaced  by  a  German  Empire,  and  that  tor  the  title  of  presi- 
dent, borne  by  the  Prussian  sovereign,  should  be  substituted  the 
title  Deutsche)-  Kaiser,  "  German  Emperor."  Bismarck  found 
it  no  easy  task  to  persuade  the  simple-minded  old  king  to  accept 
the  new  dignity.  William  wanted  his  house  to  keep  up  the 
habit-  of  industry  and  plain  living  that  he  had  followed  from  his 
youth,  and  he  feared  that  an  imperial  title  would  have  a  seduc- 
tive influence.  Bismarck  believed,  however,  that  "by  its  re- 
minder of  days  when  it  meant  theoretically  more  but  practi- 
cally less  than  now  "  the  title  would  "  constitute  an  element 
making  for  unity  and  concentration."  Consequently  he 
prompted  the  princes,  and  also  the  Prussian  parliament,  to  make 
a  formal  request  that  the  ancient  title  be  revived,  and  the  sover- 
1  felt  obliged  to  waive  his  personal  objections.  The  cere- 
mony of  proclamation  took  place,  January  18,  1871,  in  the  Hall 
« .f  Mirrors  in  the  richly  adorned  palace  of  Louis  XIV  at  Versailles, 
in  the  presence  of  the  Prussian  military  and  civil  leaders  and 
representatives  of  most  of  the  reigning  families  of  the  new  Em- 
pire, while  the  cannon  were  still  pounding  the  beleaguered  and 
last-weakening  city  of  Paris.1  An  armistice  was  agreed  to  on 
January  28,  and  the  treaty  of  Frankfort,  establishing  peace,  was 
signed  on  May  10. 

As  ordained  in  the  treaties  of  November,  1870,  ratified  subse- 
quently by  the  Bundesrath  and  the  Bundestag  of  the  Confedera- 
tion, and  by  the  legislative  assemblies  of  the  four  incoming  states, 
the  German  Empire  came  Legally  into  existence  January  1,1871. 
It  consisted  fundamentally  of  the  Confederation,  which  in  the 
process  of  expansion  did  not  lose  its  corporate  identity,  together 
with  the  four  states  whose  treaties  bound  them  severally  to  it. 
The  Bund  was  conceived  of  technically,  not  as  replaced  by,  but 
rather  as  perpetuated  in,  the  new  Empire.  The  accession  of 
the  southern  states,  however,  necessarily  involved  some  modi- 
fication of  the  original  character  of  the  union ;  and  the  innova- 
tions that  were  introduced  called  for  a  certain  amount  of  change 

dramatic  coincidence,  it  was  in  this  same  room  that  the  German  delegates 
set  their  hand,  on  June  28,  1910,  to  the  treaty  which  con<  luded  the  Great  War  — 
an  instrument  whose  every  page  testified  in  tin-  collapse  of  the  hi.^h  ambitions  born 
of  the  splendid  ceremonial  <>f  forty-eight  years  lief*. re. 


THE  HOHENZOLLERN  EMPIRE  619 

of  the  fundamental  law  upon  which  the  enlarged  structure  was  to 
be  grounded.1 

The  Imperial  Constitution.  —  The  elements  at  hand  for  making 
the  revised  constitution  were  four:  (1)  the  constitution  of  the 
North  German  Confederation,  in  operation  since  1867;  (2)  the 
treaties  of  November  15,  1870,  between  the  Confederation,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  grand  duchies  of  Baden  and  Hesse  on  the  other ; 
(3)  the  treaty  of  November  23,  1870,  which  arranged  the  adhesion 
of  the  kingdom  of  Bavaria,  and  (4)  the  treaty  of  November  25, 
1870,  between  the  Bund,  Baden,  and  Hesse,  on  the  one  side, 
and  the  kingdom  of  Wurttemberg  on  the  other.  Each  of  these 
treaties  laid  down  the  precise  conditions  under  which  the  new 
affiliation  should  be  maintained,  these  stipulations  comprising, 
in  effect,  so  many  projected  amendments  of  the  original  constitu- 
tion of  the  Bund.2  At  the  initiative  of  the  Emperor  there  was 
prepared,  early  in  1871,  a  revised  draft  of  the  constitution,  and 
in  it  were  incorporated  such  modifications  as  were  made  necessary 
by  the  adhesion  of  the  southern  states  and  the  creation  of  the 
imperial  title.  On  March  31  the  Reichstag  was  convened  in 
Berlin,  and  the  constitutional  projet  was  laid  before  it ;  already 
the  Bundesrath  had  given  its  assent.  On  April  14  the  instru- 
ment was  approved  by  the  popular  chamber,  and  two  days  later 
it  was  promulgated  as  the  supreme  law  of  the  land. 

As  it  came  from  the  hands  of  its  framers,  the  new  constitution 

1  For  brief  accounts  of  the  founding  of  the  Empire  see  B.  E.  Howard,  The  German 
Empire  (New  York,  1906),  Chap,  i ;  E.  Henderson,  Short  History  of  Germany  (new  ed., 
New  York,  19 16),  Chaps,  viii-x;  Cambridge  Modem  History,  XI,  Chaps,  xv-xvii, 
XII,  Chap,  vi;  Lavisse  et  Rambaud,  Histoire  Generate,  XI,  Chap,  viii;  Dawson, 
German  Empire,  I,  Chaps,  vii-x;  A.  W.  Ward,  Germany  1S15-1890  (Cambridge, 
1916-18),  II ;  and  M.  Smith  Bismarck  and  German  Unity  (New  York,  1910).  A  serv- 
iceable book  is  G.  B.  Malleson,  The  Refounding  of  the  German  Empire,  1848- 
1871  (2d  ed.,  London,  1904).  More  extended  presentation  of  German  history  in  the 
period  1815-71  will  be  found  in  A.  Stern,  Geschichte  Europas  seit  den  Vcrtragen  von 
1815  bis  zum  Frankfurter  Frieden  von  1871,  6  vols.  (Berlin,  1894-1911),  extending 
at  present  to  1848;  C.  F.  H.  Bulle,  Geschichte  dcr  neucsten  Zcit,  4  vols.  (Leipzig, 
1886-87),  covering  the  years  1815-85;  H.  G.  Treitschke,  Deutsche  Geschichte  im 
Neunzehnten  Jahrhnndert,  5  vols.  (Leipzig,  1879-94),  covering  the  period  to  1848, 
and  trans,  by  E.  and  C.  Paul  under  title  of  History  of  Germany  in  the  Nineteenth 
Century,  7  vols.  (London,  1916-20) ;  H.  von  Sybel,  Die  Begriin'dung  des  deutschen 
Retches  durch  Wilhclm  I  (Berlin,  1889-94),  and  in  English  translation  under  title 
of  The  Founding  of  the  German  Empire,  7  vols.  (New  York,  1890-98) ;  and  H.  von 
Zwiedeneck-Sudenhorst,  Deidsche  Geschichte  von  dcr  Aitflosung  d.  alten  bis  zur 
Errichtung  d.  netten  Kaiserrcichs  (Stuttgart,  1903-05).  Bismarck's  Reflections  and 
Reminiscences,  trans,  by  A.  S.  Butler,  2  vols.  (London,  1899),  is  indispensable,  and 
an  admirable  brief  biography  is  J.  W.  Headlam,  Bismarck  and  the  Foundation 
of  the  German  Empire  (New  York,  1899).  For  full  bibliography  see  Cambridge 
Modern  History,  X,  826-832;   XI,  879-886,  893-898;   XII,  869-875. 

2  The  first  three  of  these  treaties  were  concluded  at  Versailles ;  the  fourth  was 
signed  at  Berlin. 


620  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

was  found  to  be  a  judicious  amalgamation  of  the  various  funda- 
mental documents  that  have  been  mentioned,  i.e.,  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Confederation  and  the  treaties.  Within  the  scope  of 
its  seventy-eighl  articles  mosl  subjects  which  are  ordinarily  dealt 
with  in  such  instruments  found  ample  place:  the  nature  and 
extent  of  the  legislative  power;  the  composition,  organization, 
and  procedure  of  the  law-making  bodies  ;  the  privileges  and  pow- 
ers of  the  executive;  the  adjustment  of  disputes  and  the  punish- 
ment of  offenses  against  the  national  authority;  the  process  of 
constitutional  amendment.  The  instrument  contained,  however, 
elaborate  provisions  on  many  matters  concerning  which  constitu- 
tions, as  a  rule,  are  silent.  Therewas  an  extended  section  upon  cus- 
toms and  commerce;  another  upon  railways;  another  upon 
posts  and  telegraphs;  another  upon  navigation;  another  upon 
finance  ;  and  an  especially  detailed  one  relating  to  military  organ- 
ization. In  part,  the  elaboration  of  these  essentially  legislative 
subjects  in  the  constitution  was  to  be  attributed  to  the  federal 
character  of  the  Empire,  which  entailed  a  more  or  less  minute 
enumeration  of  powers.  In  a  greater  measure,  however,  it  arose 
from  the  purpose  of  Bismarck  and  of  William  I  to  smooth  the  way 
for  the  conversion  of  Germany  into  the  premier  military  power  of 
Europe.  In  such  matters  as  transportation,  taxation,  telegraph 
service,  and,  most  of  all,  military  administration,  no  chance 
must  be  left  for  the  states  to  obstruct  the  great  purposes  and 
projects  upon  which  the  Empire  might  later  embark.  The 
constitution  was,  on  the  other  hand,  notable  for  its  silenre  on  the 
status  and  privileges  of  the  individual.  There  was  provision  for 
a  common  citizenship,  and  a  guarantee  of  equal  protection  for 
all  citizens  as  against  foreign  powers.  But  that  is  all.  There 
was  no  bill  of  rights,  and  no  enunciation  of  abstract  principles. 
Among  instruments  of  its  kind,  none  was  of  a  more  thoroughly 
practical  character. 

"  I  credit  to  our  constitution."  declared  Bismarck  in  1877, 
"  the  capacity  to  develop  just  as  the  English  constitution  has 
developed."  To  promote  such  growth  a  simple  proress  of  formal 
amendment  was  provided.  Clauses  securing  special  rights  to 
particular  states  could  not  be  changed  withoul  the  consent  of  the 
states  affected;1  but  any  other  pari  of  the  written  instrument 
could  be  rescinded  or  amended  by  a  procedure  identical  with  that 
of  ordinarv  legislation,  i.e.,  by  being  adopted,  by  simple  majority, 
in  the  Bundesrath  and  the  Reichstag  and  duly  promulgated  by 
the  Emperor.  From  one  point  of  view,  the  process  was  extremely 
1  Art.  78.     Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  I,  351. 


THE  HOHENZOLLERN   EMPIRE  621 

easy.  No  special  machinery  had  to  be  called  into  play,  no 
"  ratification  "  to  be  awaited.  However,  it  was  also  provided 
that  any  amendment  against  which  as  many  as  fourteen  votes 
were  cast  in  the  Bundesrath  was  to  be  considered  rejected.  Since 
Prussia  alone  had  seventeen  votes  in  that  body,  and  controlled 
three  others,  her  government  could  absolutely  block  any  proposed 
amendment  of  which  it  disapproved.  The  constitution  was,  ac- 
cordingly, easy  to. amend  so  long  as  Prussia  was  willing,  but  im- 
possible to  amend  whenever  she  opposed.  It  would  require 
the  votes  of  several  states  —  at  a  minimum,  the  six  votes  of 
Bavaria,  the  four  of  Saxony,  and  the  four  of  Wurttemberg  — 
to  defeat  an  amendment  that  Prussia  wanted.  Between  1873 
and  1 91 4  the  text  of  the  fundamental  law  was  amended  eleven 
times,  the  last  change  being  the  admission  of  Alsace-Lorraine 
to  representation  in  the  Bundesrath,  under  certain  restrictions, 
in  191 1.  But,  as  in  all  nations,  the  actual  governmental  system 
changed  in  other  ways  besides  formal  constitutional  amendment, 
chiefly  through  ordinary  legislation,  through  interstate  agree- 
ments, and  through  custom.  Thus  it  was  by  ordinary  legislation 
that  the  several  ministries  and  the  Imperial  courts  were  created  ; 
by  interstate  agreement  that  Prussia  had  the  administration  of 
the  state  of  Waldeck  ;  and  by  custom  that  the  Emperor  exercised 
the  power  to  initiate  legislation,  and  that  the  Bundesrath,  instead 
of  meeting  periodically,  was  in  continuous  session.1 

Federal  Character  of  the  Empire.  —  The  political  system  of 
Germany  up  to  the  collapse  of  the  Imperial  regime  in  191 8  was 
the  product  of  centuries  of  particularistic  statecraft,  capped, 
in  187 1 ,  by  a  partial  centralization  of  sovereign  organs  and  powers. 
The  Empire  was  composed  of  twenty-five  states :  the  four  king- 
doms of  Prussia,  Bavaria,  Saxony,  and  Wurttemberg;  the  six 
grand-duchies  of  Baden,  Hesse,  Mecklenburg-Schwerin,  Saxe- 
Weimar,  Mecklenburg-Strelitz,  and  Oldenburg ;  the  five  duchies 
of  Brunswick,  Saxe-Meiningen,  Saxe-Altenburg,  Saxe-Coburg- 
Gotha,  and  Anhalt ;  the  seven  principalities  of  Schwarzburg- 
Sonderhausen,  Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt,  Waldeck,  Reuss  Alterer 
Linie,   Reuss  Jiingerer  Linie,   Lippe,    and   Schaumburg-Lippe ; 

1  The  text  of  the  Imperial  constitution,  in  German,  is  printed  in  Lowell,  Govern- 
ments and  Parties  in  Continental  Europe,  II,  355-377,  and  in  Laband,  Deutsches 
Reichsstaatsrecht,  411-428;  in  English,  in  Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  I,  325-351, 
in  Goodnow,  Principles  of  Constitutional  Government,  352-368;  and  in  Howard, 
German  Empire,  403-435.  Carefully  edited  German  texts  are:  L.  von  Ronne, 
Verfassung  des  deutschen  Reiches  (8th  ed.,  Berlin,  1899),  and  A.  Arndt,  Verfassung  des 
deutschen  Reiches  (Berlin,  1902).  On  the  formation  of  the  constitution  see  A. 
Lebon,  "Les  origines  deja  constitution  allemande,"  in  Ann.  de  I'Ecole  Libre  des  Sci. 
Polit.,  July,  1888,  and  Etudes  sur  V Allemagnc  politique  (Paris,  1890). 


G0\  ERNMEN  rS  01     El  ROPE 

;  the  three  Free  citie  of  Hamburg,  Bremen,  and  LUbeck. 
rhese  states  varied  in  size  from  Prussia,  with  i  54,616  square  mil<  . 
to  Bremen,  with  99;  and  in  population,  from  Prussia,  with 
40,163,333,  to  Schaumburg-Lippe,  with  46,650.  There  was,  in 
addition,  the  Reichsland,  or  [mperial  domain,  of  Al  u  e  Lorraine, 
whose  position  until  [911  was  thai  of  a  purely  dependenl  terri- 
tory, but  which  by  act  of  the  year  mentioned  was  raised  to  quasi- 
statehood. 

Prior  to  the  formation  of  the  North  German  Confederation, 
each  of  the  twenty-five  states  was  sovereign  and  essentially 
independent.  Each  had  its  own  governmental  establishment, 
and  in  many  instances  the  existing  political  .-ystem  was  of  con- 
siderable  antiquity.  With  the  organization  of  the  Bund,  those 
states  which  were  identified  with  the  federation  yielded  their 
independence,  and  presumably  their  sovereignty;  and  with 
the  establishment  of  the  Empire,  all  gave  up  whatever  claim 
they  as  yet  maintained  to  absolute  autonomy.  Both  the 
Bund  and  the  Empire  were  creations,  strictly  speaking,  of  the 
states,  not  of  the  people;  and  to  the  last,  as  a  German  jurist 
has  put  it,  the  Empire  was  "  not  a  juristic-  person  composed  of 
fifty-six  million  members,  but  of  twenty-five  members."1  At 
the  same  time,  it  was  not  what  the  old  Confederation  of  181 5 
was,  i.e.,  a  league  of  princes.  It  was  a  state  established  by,  and 
composed  of,  states.  The  Germans  were  not  themselves  alto- 
gether agreed  upon  the  precise  location  of  sovereignty  ;  but  it  is 
reasonably  clear  that  sovereignty,  in  the  proper  meaning  of  that 
much  misused  term,  was  vested  in  the  government  of  the  Empire 
and  not  in  that  of  any  state.  The  embodiment  of  that  sover- 
eignty, as  will  appear,  was  not  the  national  parliament,  nor 
yet  the  Emperor,  but  the  Bundesrath,  which  represented  the 
"  totality  "  of  the  affiliated  governments.2 

1  P.  Laband,  Das Staatsrecht  des deutschen  Retches  (4th  ed.,  Tubingen,  igoi),  I,  gi. 

2  On  the  juristic  aspects  of  the  Empire  the  best  work  in  English  is  Howard, 
German  Empire  (Chap,  ii,  on  "The  Empire  and  the  Individual  States").  There  is 
a  good  brief  statement  in  F.  Kru^er,  Government  and  Politics  of  the  German  Empire 
( Yonkers,  191 5),  Chap.  iv.  A  useful  volume  covering  the  governments  of  Fmpireand 
states  is  CombesdeLe-t  ra<lr,  Les  monarchies  del' Empire  allemand  I  Paris,  1004).  The 
monumental  German  treatise  is  Laband,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  deutschen  Reiches,  men- 
tioned  above,  in  four  volumes.  There  is  a  sis  volume  French  translation  of  this  work, 
Le  droit  public  de  V  Empire  allemand  (Pari-.  1000-04).  Other  German  works  are: 
O.Mayer,  Deutsches  Verwaltungsrecht  (Leipzig,  1895-96);  1'.  /.<>rn,  Das  Staatsrecht 
des  dentsclun  Reiches  (2d  ed.,  Berlin.  1805-^07);  and  A.  Arndt,  Das  Staatsrecht  des 
deutschen  Reiches  (Berlin,  igoi).  There  is  a  four-volume  French  translation  of 
Mayer's  important  work,  under  the  title  Le  droit  administratij  allemand  (Paris, 
r.903  06),     Two   excellent    brief    German    treatises  are:     P.    Laband,    Deutsches 

lit  (3d  ed.,  Tubingen,  1907),  and  Hue  de  Grais,  llandbuch  dcr  Vcrfassung 


THE  HOHENZOLLERN  EMPIRE  623 

The  Empire  and  the  States  :  Division  of  Powers.  —  The  fed- 
eral character  of  the  Empire  called  for  a  division  of  the  powers  of 
legislation,  administration,  and  justice  between  the  Imperial 
governmental  establishment  and  the  states.  As  in  our  own 
country,  the  powers  of  the  federal  government  were  specific,  and 
enumerated;  while  those  of  the  states  were  broad,  undefined, 
residual.  It  is  inconceivable  that  the  lesser  states  would  have 
entered  a  union  formed,  and  likely  to  be  dominated,  by  Prussia 
on  any  other  terms.  Through  constitutional  amendment,  and 
even  through  legislation  and  custom,  the  Imperial  government 
could  bring  about  an  enlargement  of  the  powers  that  had  been 
confided  to  it;  but  until  it  did  so  in  any  particular  direction 
the  power  of  the  state  governments  in  that  direction  was  unlim- 
ited. On  the  one  hand,  there  was  a  considerable  field  of  legisla- 
tive activity  —  in  respect  to  citizenship,  tariffs,  weights,  measures, 
coinage,  patents,  military  and  naval  establishments  of  the  Em- 
pire, etc.  —  in  which  the  Empire,  by  virtue  of  constitutional  stipu- 
lation, had  exclusive  power  to  act.1  On  the  other  hand,  there 
was  a  no  less  extensive  domain  reserved  entirely  to  the  states  — 
the  determination  of  their  own  forms  of  government,  of  laws  of 
succession,  of  relations  of  church  and  state,  of  questions  pertain- 
ing to  their  internal  administration ;  the  framing  of  their  own 
budgets,  police  regulations,  highway  laws,  and  laws  relating  to 
land  tenure ;  the  control  of  public  instruction.  Between  lay 
a  broad  and  shifting  area,  which  was  shared  by  the  two.  "  The 
matters  over  which  the  states  preserve  control,"  wrote  Laband 
years  ago,  "  cannot  be  separated  completely  from  those  to  which 
extends  the  competence  of  the  Empire.  The  various  powers  of 
government  are  intimately  related  one  to  another.  They  run 
together  and  at  the  same  time  impose  mutual  checks  in  so  many 
ways,  and  are  so  interlaced,  that  one  cannot  hope  to  set  them  off 
by  a  line  of  demarcation,  or  to  set  up  among  them  a  Chinese  wall 
of  division.  In  every  sphere  of  their  activity  the  states  encounter 
a  superior  power  to  which  they  are  obliged  to  submit.  They 
are  free  to  move  only  in  the  circle  which  Imperial  law-making 

und  Verwaltung  in  Preussen  und  don  deutschen  Rciclic  (18th  ed.,  Berlin,  1907). 
The  most  recent  work  upon  the  subject  is  F.  Fleiner,  Institutional  des  deutschen 
Verwaltungsrechts  (Tubingen,  ion).  A  valuable  monograph  is  J.  du  Buy,  Tico 
Aspects  of  the  German  Constitution  (New  Haven,  1894).  For  a  comparison  of  the 
German  constitution  with  the  American  and  English  constitutions,  see  O.  Gierke, 
"German  Constitutional  Law  in  its  Relation  to  the  American  Constitution,"  in 
Harvard  Law  Rev.,  Feb.,  19 10. 

1  Matters  placed  under  the  control  of  the  Empire  and  made  subject  to  Imperial 
legislation  are  enumerated  in  the  sixteen  sections  of  Article  4  of  the  constitution. 
Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I,  327-328. 


624  GOVERNMEN  rS    OF    EUROPE 

leaves  open  to  them.  That  circle  does  exist.  It  is  delimited, 
but  not  wholly  occupied,  by  the  Empire.  .  .  .  En  a  certain  sense 
ii  may  be  said  thai  it  is  only  by  suffrance  of  the  Empire  that 

•  States  maintain  their  political  rights  at  all,  and  that,  at  best, 
their  tenure  is  precarious."  l 

It  may  be  observed  that  there  was,  in  fact,  a  distirn  t  tendeni  y 
toward  the  reduction  of  the  sphere  of  authority  Formerly  left 
to  the  states.  One  of  the  means  by  which  this  was  brought 
about  was  the  establishment  of  uniform  codes  of  law  throughout 
the  Empire,  containing  regulations  upon  a  multitude  of  subjei  ts 
which  otherwise  would  have  been  dealt  with  by  the  states  alone. 
Most  important  among  these  was  the  great  Civil  Code,  which 
went  into  effect  January  i,  1900.  Another  means  to  the  same 
end  was  the  increase  in  later  years  of  Imperial  legislation  relating 
to  workingmen's  insurance,  factory  regulations,  industrial  condi- 
tions, and  other  matters  of  a  social  and  economic  nature.  Fur- 
thermore, there  was  no  power  in  the  courts  to  pass  upon  the  con- 
stitutionality of  Imperial  laws  and  acts,  and  thereby  to  keep  the 
Imperial  authority  within  bounds.  Many  times  in  the  past 
fifteen  or  twenty  years  the  states,  or  some  of  them,  raised  pro- 
test against  this  centralizing  tendency,  and  especially  against 
the  "  Prussianization  "  of  the  Empire  which  it  seemed  clearly 
to  involve.  In  many  states,  especially  those  south  of  the  Main, 
the  separatist  tradition  continued  strong  throughout  the  entire 
Imperial  period.  In  Bavaria,  more  than  anywhere  else,  was  this 
true,  and  in  1903  a  new  premier  of  that  country  was  able  to  arouse 
genuine  enthusiasm  for  his  government  by  a  solemn  declaration 
before  the  Diet  that  he  and  his  colleagues  would  combat  with  all 
their  might  "  any  attempt  to  shape  the  future  of  the  Empire  on 
lines  other  than  the  federative  basis  laid  down  in  the  Imperial 
constitution." 

The  functions  of  a  legislative  character  delegated  to  the  Im- 
perial government  were  numerous  and  comprehensive,  and  in 
practice  they  constantly  tended  to  be  increased.  Functions  of 
executive  and  judicial  nature  were  very  much  more  restricted. 
In  respect  to  foreign  relations,  the  navy,  and  the  postal  and 
telegraph  service,  administration  was  absolutely  centralized 
in  the  organs  of  the  Empire;  in  respe<  t  to  everything  else,  ad- 
ministrative functions  were  performed  entirely,  or  almost 
entirely,  through  the  agency  of  the  states.  Military  adminis- 
tration was,  indeed,  centralized;  but  in  the  hands  of  Prussia 
rather  than  in  those  of  the  Empire.  In  the  United  States  the 
1  Laband,  Das  Staalsrecht  des  dculschen  Rcichcs,  I,  102-103. 


THE  HOHENZOLLERN   EMPIRE  625 

federal  government  is  essentially  complete  within  itself.  It  has 
its  own  lawmakers,  administrators,  and  judges,  who  carry  on  the 
national  government  largely  independently  of  the  governing 
agencies  of  the  various  states.  In  Germany,  where  the  state 
as  such  has  occupied  a  more  exalted  position  than  does  its  counter- 
part in  America,  the  central  government,  in  all  save  the  fields 
that  have  been  mentioned,  depended  for  the  execution  of  its 
measures  upon  the  officials  of  the  states,  not  as  a  matter  of  con- 
stitutional requirement,  but  out  of  considerations  of  conven- 
ience. The  Empire  established  taxes  and  customs  duties,  but 
the  states  collected  them.  Similarly,  justice  was  rendered,  not 
in  the  name  of  the  Empire,  but  in  the  name  of  the  several  states, 
and  by  judges  in  their  employ. 

So  far  as  machinery  went,  the  Imperial  government  was, 
therefore,  but  part  of  a  government.  Standing  alone,  it  could 
not  be  made  to  operate.  It  lacked  a  judiciary ;  likewise  the  larger 
portion  of  the  administrative  agencies  without  which  powers  of 
legislation  are  futile.  To  put  the  matter  succinctly,  the  working 
government  of  the  Empire  comprised  far  more  than  the  organs 
and  functions  that  were  purely  Imperial ;  it  comprised  the 
federal  organs  and  functions  possessed  by  the  individual  states 
as  well.1 

The  Privileged  States.  —  Legally,  the  union  of  the  German 
states  was  indestructible.  The  Imperial  government  was  vested 
with  no  power  to  expel. a  state,  to  unite  it  with  another  state,  to 
divide  it,  or  in  any  way  to  alter  its  status  in  the  federation  with- 
out its  own  consent.  On  the  other  hand,  no  state  had  a  right 
to  secede,  or  to  modify  its  powers  or  obligations  within  the 
Empire.  If  a  state  violated  its  obligations  or  refused  to  be 
bound  by  the  authority  of  the  Empire,  the  federal  army,  on 
decision  of  the  Bundesrath,  might  be  mobilized  by  the  Emperor 
against  it.2 

Among  the  states,  however,  there  was  no  pretense  of  equality 
of  status  and  privilege.  When  the  Empire  was  formed  the  fed- 
erated states  differed  widely  in  area,  population,  and  traditional 
rights,  and  there  was  no  attempt  to  reduce  them  to  an  absolutely 
uniform  footing.  Prussia,  besides  being  the  moving  spirit  in 
the  new  affiliation,  contained  a  population  considerably  in  excess 
of  that  of  the  other  twenty-four  states  combined.  The  conse- 
quence was  that  Prussia  inevitably  became  the  preponderating 
power  in  the  Empire.     The  king  of  Prussia  was  ex-officio  German 

1  Lebon,  Etudes  sur  VAllemagne  politique,  93-104. 

2  Art.  19.     Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I,  332. 


626  GOVERNMENTS  01     EUROPE 

Emperor  ;  the  Prussian  votes  in  the  Bundesrath  could  defeat  any 
proposed  amendment  of  the  constitution,  and  likewise  any 
measure  Looking  toward  a  reduction  of  the  army  or  navy  or  a 
decrease  of  the  taxes;  and  Prussia  controlled  the  chairmanship 
of  all  standing  committees  in  the  Bundesrath  except  the  commit- 
tee on  foreign  affairs.1 

Other  privileges  Prussia  had  by  virtue,  not  of  the  constitution, 
but  of  agreements  with  her  sister  states.  The  most  important 
of  these  related  to  the  army.  The  constitution  provided  .it  the 
outset  that  the  armed  forces  ^i  the  Empire  should  be  organized 
into  a  single  establishment,  to  be  governed  by  Imperial  law  and 
to  lie  under  the  supreme  command  ^\  the  Emperor.2  In  the  ap- 
pointment of  minor  officers,  and  some  other  matters,  powers  of 
jurisdiction  were  left,  however,  to  the  individual  states.  Th< 
powers  were  in  themselves  worth  little,  and  in  the  course  of  time 
all  of  the  states  save  Bavaria,  Saxony,  and  Wurttemberg  were 
brought  to  the  point  of  yielding  to  Prussia  the  slender  military 
authority  that  remained  in  them/ 

In  this  manner  Prussia  acquired  the  right  to  recruit,  drill, 
and  officer  the  contingents  of  twenty-one  states  —  a  right  which 
appreciably  increased  her  already  preponderant  authority  in 
all  affairs  of  a  military  character.  As  matters  stood  prior  to 
1914,  there  was.  technically,  no  German  army,  just  as  there  was 
no  German  minister  of  war.  Each  state  maintained  its  own 
contingent,  which  was  normally  stationed  within  that  state.  By 
virtue  of  the  treaties,  however,  all  contingents  save  those  of  Ba- 
varia, Saxony,  and  Wurttemberg  were  administered  precisely 
as  if  they  formed  integral  parts  of  the  Prussian  establishment 
and  were  organized  on  the  same  principles.4 

Prussia,  howrever,  was  not  the  only  state  that  enjoyed  privileges 
under  the  Empire  peculiar  to  itself.  When  the  states  of  the  south 
became  members  of  the  federation  all  put  forward  certain 
Sondcrrcchlc,  or  reserved  rights,  whose  acknowledgment  was 
made  the  condition  upon  which  they  came  into  the  union.  Wurt- 
temberg and  Bavaria  retained  on  this  basis  the  administration 

JA.  Lebon,  "La  constitution  allemande  ct  l'hcfrcmoinc  prussienne,"  in  Ann.  C. 
VEcole  Libre  des  Sri.  Polit..  Jan.,  1S.S7.  The  committee  on  foreign  affairs,  whose 
chairmanship  was  held  by  Bavaria,  was  <>f  little  practical  importance.  To  1006,' 
it  was  never  convened.  Thereafter  it  met  occasionally,  and  in  the  (Ireat  War 
frequently. 

2  Arts.  61,  63.  64.     Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  1.  34s  347- 
3The  first  of  the  Prussian  military  treaties       thai  1  oncluded  with  Saxe-CoburR- 
—  dates  from  1861 ;    tin-  lasl       that  with  Brunswick-     from  1885. 
yard,  German  Empire,  Chap,  xii ;    Laband,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  deutschen 
Rcichcs,  §§  95-113;    C.  Morhain,  De  I' empire  allcmand  (Paris,  1886),  Chap.  xv. 


THE   HOHENZOLLERN   EMPIRE  627 

of  posts  and  telegraphs  within  their  boundaries,  and  Wiirttem- 
berg,  Bavaria,  and  Baden  had  exclusive  right  to  tax  beers  and 
brandies  produced  within  each  state  respectively.  Bavaria 
retained  the  administration  of  her  own  railways.  At  one  time 
it  was  feared  that  the  special  privileges  given  the  southern  states 
would  prove  a  menace  to  the  stability  of  the  Empire ;  but  the 
apprehension  proved  groundless.1 

The  additional  fact  may  be  noted  that  under  the  Imperial 
constitution  the  right  to  commission  and  dispatch  diplomatic 
(although  not  consular)  agents  was  not  withdrawn  from  the  in- 
dividual states.  In  most  instances,  however,  the  maintenance 
of  diplomatic  representatives  abroad  was  long  ago  discontinued. 
Saxony,  Bavaria,  and  Wtirttemberg  retained  in  191 4.  only  their 
posts  at  Vienna,  St.  Petersburg,  and  the  Vatican. 

1  Laband,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  dcutschen  Reiches,  §§  11-13. 


CHAPTER  XXXV 

THE   IMPERIAL    GERMAN    GOVERNMENT1 

The  Emperor:  Status  and  Privileges.  -Under  the  North 
German  Confederation  of  1867  -71  the  king  of  Prussia  had  supreme 
command  of  the  federal  army  and  navy,  and  also  numerous  purely 
governmental  functions,  including  control  over  the  sessions  of  the 
Bundesrath  and  Bundestag,  the  appointment  of  the  Chancellor 
and  of  other  federal  officials,  the  publication  of  the  federal  laws, 
and  a  genera!  supervision  of  the  federal  administration.  These 
powers  were  exercised  by  the  king  partly  in  the  capacity  of 
Bundesfeldherr,  or  commander-in-chief  of  the  federal  forces, 
partly  in  the  capacity  of  Bundesprasident,  or  principal  magistrate. 
Upon  the  accession  of  the  south  German  states  in  1870-71,  Bis- 
marck, as  has  been  related,  determined  to  bring  again  into  use 
the  title  of  emperor,  although  he  recognized  as  clearly  as  any  one 
that  between  the  empire  that  was  now  assuming  form  and  the 
empire  that  had  been  extinguished  in  1806  there  was  no  historical 
connection.  The  constitution  of  April  16,  1871,  accordingly 
stipulated  :  "  to  the  king  of  Prussia  shall  belong  the  presidency 
of  the  Confederation,  and  he  shall  bear  the  title  of  Deutscher 
Kaiser  [German  Emperor]." 

The  revival  of  the  Imperial  title  and  dignity  was  intended  to 
work  no  change  in  the  status  of  the  Bundesprasident,  except  as 
regarded  his  official  designation  and  certain  of  his  personal  priv- 
ileges. It  will  be  observed  that  the  title  adopted  was  not  "  Em- 
peror of  Germany."  That  would  imply  direct  sovereignty  over 
the  entire  country,  whereas  the  purpose  was  thai  the  Emperor, 
while  a  German  Emperor,  should  be  only  what  the  Bundespra- 
sident had  been,  i.e.,  primus  inter  pares  in  a  confederation  of 
Landesherren,  or  territorial  princes.  He  was  himself  to  be  a 
territorial  sovereign  only  in  Prussia.2     The  title,  therefore,  did 

•This  chapter  describes  the  national  govemmenl  of  Germany  as  it  was  up  to 
the  changes  which  immediately  preceded  the  armistice  of  November  1 1,  igi8.  _ 

2  At  a  banquet  on  the  occasion  of  the  coronation  of  Tsar  Nicholas  II  Prince 
Ludwig  of  Bavaria  made  a  vigorous  attack  upon  a  speaker  who  had  alluded  to 
the  princes  attending  this  function  as  being  in  the  retinue  of  Prince  Henry  of 
Prussia,  brother  and  representative  of  the  Emperor.  In  emphatic  terms,  the 
proud  Bavarian  reminded  his  hearers  that  the  German  princes  were  not  the 
vassals,  but  the  federal  partners,  of  the  Prussian  king. 

628 


THE  IMPERIAL  GERMAN  GOVERNMENT  62Q 

not  denote  a  monarchy  of  the  usual  sort.  There  was  no  Imperial 
crown,  no  Imperial  civil  list,  no  Imperial  "  office  "  as  such.  The 
king  of  Prussia,  in  addition  to  his  purely  Prussian  prerogatives  - 
and  they  were  very  great  was  by  the  Imperial  constitution 
vested  with  the  functions  of  the  old  Bimdes  president,  plus  the 
function  of  bearing  the  Kaiser  title ;  that  was  all.  Apart  from 
the  Prussian  crown  the  Imperial  function  did  not  exist;  from 
which  it  followed  that  there  was  no  law  of  Imperial  succession 
apart  from  the  Prussian  law  regulating  the  tenure  of  the  Prussian 
throne,1  and  that  in  the  event  of  a  regency  in  Prussia  the  regent 
would,  ipso  facto,  exercise  the  functions  of  Emperor.  Chief 
among  the  privileges  which  the  constitution  or.  subsequent  law 
bestowed  upon  the  Kaiser  as  such  were  special  protection  of 
person  and  family,  and  absolute  exemption  from  legal  process. 
Responsible  to  no  superior  earthly  authority,  the  Emperor  could 
not  be  brought  for  trial  before  any  tribunal,  nor  be  removed  from 
office  by  any  judicial  proceeding.  Assaults  upon  his  person 
were  punishable  with  death,  and  attacks  in  speech  or  writing 
which  constituted  Use  majeste  were  subject  to  special  and  severe 
penalties.2 

The  Emperor :  Legislative,  Judicial,  and  Executive  Powers.  — 
The  king  of  Prussia  being  ipso  facto  Emperor,  the  royal  and  Im- 
perial functions  which  were  combined  in  the  hands  of  the  one 
monarch  were  of  necessity  closely  interrelated.  Some  powers 
belonged  to  him  solely  by  virtue  of  his  position  as  king  of  Prussia. 
Others,  of  an  Imperial  nature,  he  possessed  by  reason  of  the  fact 
that,  being  king  of  Prussia,  he  was  also  Emperor.  In  practice, 
if  not  in  law,  there  were  still  others  which  arose  from  the  pre- 
ponderance of  the  Prussian  kingdom  as  a  state  within  the  Empire 
—  the  power,  in  general,  of  imparting  a  bent  to  Imperial  policy 
such  as  would  not  have  been  possible  if,  for  example,  the  king 
of  Wiirttemberg  had  been  Emperor,  rather  than  the  king  of 
Prussia. 

The  powers  that  went  with  the  Imperial  title  fell  into  three 
general  classes  —  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive.  The  con- 
stitution, in  the  first  place,  gave  to  the  Emperor  the  right  to  con- 
vene the  Bundesrath  and  the  Reichstag,  and  to  open,  adjourn, 
and  close  them ;  although  it  is  to  be  observed  that  for  many  years 
before  the  Great  War  the  Bundesrath  was,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
almost  continuously  in  session.  Under  the  letter  of  the  law,  the 
Reichstag  could  be  dissolved  (entailing  a  general  election  within 

1  Arts.  53-58  of  the  Prussian  constitution.     See  p.  658. 
2R.  C.  Brooks,  "Lese  Majeste,"  in  Bookman,  June,  1904. 


630  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

sixty  days)  only  by  the  Bundesrath;  but  in  practice  dissolution 
was  ordered  by  the  Emperor  with  the  Bundesrath's  consent. 
in  tin'  second  place,  bills  passed  by  the  Bundesrath  were  laid 
before  the  Reichstag  in  the  name  of  the  Emperor.  So  far  as  the 
law  went,  the  Emperor,  as  such,  had  110  right  of  initiative  in 
legislation,  but  practically  such  a  right  was  freely  exercised.  In 
the  third  place,  it  foil  to  the  Emperor  to  promulgate  the  laws  after 
they  were  duly  passed.  As  Emperor,  he  had  no  general  right  of 
veto.  He  might  refuse  to  publish  a  law  on  the  ground  of  alleged 
irregularity  in  its  enactment,  but  he  was  given  no  power  to  with- 
hold a  measure  because  of  its  contents.  However,  as  king  of 
Prussia  he  controlled  enough  votes  in  the  Bundesrath  to  impose 
an  absolute  check  upon  constitutional  amendments  and  to  im- 
pede other  kinds  of  legislation  to  which  he  was  opposed.  Finally, 
in  so  far  as  was  permitted  by  the  constitution  and  the  laws,  he 
might  issue  ordinances  under  the  countersignature  of  the  Chan- 
cellor. 

Of  judicial  powers,  two  were  of  chief  importance.  On  motion 
of  the  Bundesrath,  the  Emperor  appointed  (although  he  could 
not  remove)  the  members  of  the  Reichsgeficht,  or  Imperial 
Court ;  and  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  stipulated  that  in 
cases  in  which  the  Imperial  Court  should  have  rendered  judgment 
as  a  tribunal  of  first  instance,  he  should  have  the  power  of  pardon. 
The  pardoning  power  was  extended  likewise  to  cases  decided  in 
consular  courts,  prize  courts,  and  other  tribunals  specified  by 
law. 

Finally,  the  execution  of  Imperial  laws  was  intrusted  to  the 
Emperor,  with,  however,  the  important  qualification  that 
measures  of  the  Imperial  government  whose  execution  was  not 
otherwise  provided  for  by  the  constitution,  or  by  the  laws 
themselves,  were  enforced  by  the  authorities  of  several  states. 
There  were,  however,  Imperial  agents  whose  business  it  was  to 
inspect  the  execution  of  Imperial  measures  by  the  states  and 
to  bring  infractions  or  omissions  to  the  Emperor's  attention. 
When  such  delinquencies  were  deemed  sufficiently  serious,  the 
Emperor  might  report  them  to  the  Bundesrath,  and  that  body 
might  order  an  "  execution,"  i.e.,  a  show  of  military  force,  under 
the  direction  of  the  Emperor,  to  coerce  the  erring  state.  Incident 
to  the  general  executive  function  was  the  power  to  make  appoint- 
ments. The  constitution  stipulated  that  the  Emperor,  in  ad- 
dition to  appointing  the  Imperial  Chancellor,  should  appoint 
Imperial  officials,  require  of  them  an  oath  to  the  Empire,  and, 
when  necessary,  dismiss  them.     The  position  which  the  Chan- 


THE  IMPERIAL  GERMAN  GOVERNMENT  631 

cellor  occupied  in  the  Imperial  administrative  system  was  such 
that  the  power  of  appointing  to,  and  of  removing  from,  the  chan- 
cellorship was  in  itself  of  the  utmost  importance ;  and  the  Kaiser's 
control  of  administration  was  still  farther  increased  by  his  power 
to  appoint  and  remove  subordinate  officials.  Practically,  the 
administrative  hierarchy,  from  the  Chancellor  down,  was  in  his 
hands. 

The  Emperor :  Control  of  Foreign  Relations  and  the  Military 
Establishment.  —  "  The  Kaiser,"  said  the  Imperial  constitution, 
"  shall  represent  the  Empire  in  international  matters  and  in 
the  name  of  the  Empire  shall  declare  war  and  make  peace,  shall 
enter  into  alliances  and  treaties  with  foreign  states,  and  shall 
accredit  ambassadors  and  receive  them."1  The  control  which 
this  clause  gave  over  foreign  relations  was  practically  unlimited. 
The  Emperor  appointed  and  received  all  Imperial  ambassadors 
and  ministers ;  and,  as  has  been  observed,  only  the  Imperial, 
not  the  state,  diplomatic  representatives  were  any  longer  of  im- 
portance. The  consuls,  also,  were  appointed  exclusively  by  the 
Emperor,  in  consultation  with  the  Bundesrath  committee  on 
trade  and  commerce.  The  unrestricted  power  to  appoint  am- 
bassadors and  ministers  was  systematically  employed  by  William 
II  to  prepare  the  way  for  German  world  dominion.  One  need 
only  cite  the  selection  of  the  crafty  Barron  Wangenheim  a  decade 
ago  to  bring  Turkey  completely  under  German  control,  and  of 
the  mild-mannered  Prince  Lichnowsky  (although  he  seems  to 
have  been  an  innocent  tool)  in  191 2  to  lull  England  into  a  false 
sense  of  security.  No  treaty  could  be  made  without  the  Emper- 
or's assent ;  and,  in  the  main,  the  initiative  in  treaty-making 
lay  with  him.  The  only  restriction  was  the  provision  of  the  con- 
stitution that,  so  far  as  treaties  related  to  matters  which  were  to 
be  regulated  by  Imperial  legislation,  "  the  consent  of  the  Bundes- 
rath is  required  for  their  conclusion,  and  the  approval  of  the 
Reichstag  is  necessary  to  make  them  valid."2  The  power  to 
make  war  and  peace  was  qualified  in  the  constitution  by  the 
requirement  that  war  should  be  declared  only  with  the  consent 
of  the  Bundesrath,  "  unless  an  attack  is  made  upon  the  federal 
territory  or  its  coasts."  It  is  necessary  to  observe,  however,  in 
the  first  place,  that,  as  king  of  Prussia  the  Emperor  absolutely 
controlled  upwards  of  one-third  of  the  votes  in  the  Bundesrath 
and,  second,  that  if  the  Emperor  wanted  war  it  was  a  matter  of 
no  great  difficulty  to  bring  about  an  international  situation  such 

1  Art.  11.     Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I,  330. 

2  Art.  11,  clause  3.     Ibid.,  I,  331. 


632  GOV  ERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

that  it  could  be  alleged  thai  an  attack  was  going  to  be  made  upon 
the  "  Federal  territory  or  its  coasts."  This  is  precisely  what  was 
done  in  r.914.1 

Finally,  the  Emperor  was  commander-in-chief  of  the  armed 
forces  of  the  Empire.  The  case  of  the  navy  was  simple.  When 
the  North  German  Confederation  was  formed,  no  state  entering 
the  union  had  a  navy  except  Prussia.  This  Prussian  navy  was, 
of  course,  taken  into  tin-  Bmul,  and  eventually  into  the  Empire. 
The  other  states  began  to  contribute  to  its  support;  but  it  1  on- 
tinued  under  the  absolute  control  of  t lie  Prussian  king,  now  Em- 
peror, and  it  was  never  anything  but  a  unitary  establishment. 
Until  1889  the  commanding  admiral  was  an  appointee  of  the  Em- 
peror ;  after  that  date  the  Emperor  himself.  Naval  affairs  were 
administered  through  the  Imperial  Naval  ( >mce  at  Berlin,  pre- 
sided over  by  a  secretary  of  state  who,  although  nominally  re- 
sponsible to  the  Chancellor,  always  enjoyed  a  large  amount 
of  independence.  From  1897  to  191 6,  this  post  was  filled  by  the 
author  of  Germany's  submarine  campaign  in  the  Great  War, 
Grand-Admiral  von  Tirpitz. 

The  status  of  the  army  was  more  complicated.  Each  member 
of  the  Bund,  prior  to  1867,  had  its  own  army,  organized  and 
equipped  under  its  own  laws.  Each  now  placed  its  army,  as  a 
contingent,  at  the  service  of  the  federation,  yet  without  surren- 
dering it  completely;  and  up  to  the  collapse  of  the  Imperial 
system  in  1918  the  organization  presented  a  unique  combination 
of  unitary  and  federal  features.  Technically,  each  state  had 
its  own  army,  and  the  rulers  of  the  several  states  were  the  heads 
of  their  respective  contingents.  But  these  contingents  were 
recruited,  organized,  equipped,  and  drilled  under  Imperial  law; 
their  strength  was  fixed  by  the  Imperial  legislative  bodies;  all 
expenses  of  maintenance  were  paid  out  of  the  Imperial  treasury; 
and  the  Emperor  was  commander-in-chief,  with  full  powers  of 
inspection,  appointment,  and  mobilization  in  time  of  peace, 
and  with  unlimited  authority  in  time  of  war.  The  only  contin- 
gents which  retained  special  privileges  were  those  of  Bavaria, 
Wurttemberg,  and  Saxony.  In  so  far  as  military  administration 
was  centralized,  it  was  carried  on  through  the  Prussian  min- 
istry of  war;  for  jusl  as,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  there  was  no  Im- 
perial army,  so  there  was  no  [mperial  war  ministry.  If,  however, 
the  law  knew  no  [mperial  army,  but  only  a  combination  of  state 
contingents,  these  contingents  none  the  less  formed,  as  the  world 

1  1 1.  I'.  Myers,  "  L(  gislatures  and  Foreign  Relations,"  in  Amer.  Polit.  Sci.  Rev., 
Nov.,  1917,  pp.  654-664. 


THE   IMPERIAL   GERMAN   GOVERNMENT  633 

has  good  reason  to  know,  a  wholly  unified  fighting  force  under  the 
Imperial  command.  With  the  world's  second  navy  at  his  abso- 
lute call,  with  a  military  system  which  aimed  to  pass  the  whole 
able-bodied  male  population  of  the  Empire  through  the  army, 
with  power  to  mold  this  army  on. almost  any  pattern,  with  all 
officers  and  men  under  personal  oath  of  allegiance  to  him,  and 
with  means  of  turning  both  army  and  navy  loose  upon  the  world 
almost  at  will,  the  Kaiser  had  indeed  become,  by  1914,  the  chief 
war  lord  of  modern  times.1 

The  Chancellor :  Functions.  —  Within  the  domain  of  Imperial 
government  the  place  filled  in  other  political  systems  by  a 
ministry  or  cabinet  was  occupied  by  a  single  official  known  as  the 
Reichskanzler ,  or  Chancellor.  When  the  constitution  of  1867  was 
framed  Bismarck  sought  to  secure  for  the  new  federal  government 
a  high  degree  of  administrative  unity,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
provide  for  himself  a  place  of  becoming  dignity  and  power,  by 
giving  the  Chancellor  no  colleagues,  and  by  making  him  re- 
sponsible solely  to  the  Bundesprasident.  The  plan  tended,  of 
course,  toward  a  thoroughgoing  centralization  in  Imperial  affairs 
and  an  utter  negation  of  anything  in  the  nature  of  cabinet  gov- 
ernment. The  subject  was  reopened  for  discussion  in  1871,  and 
the  liberal  elements  in  the  constituent  Reichstag  forced  a  modifi- 
cation, of  such  a  sort  that  when  the  constitution  assumed  final 
form  it  contained  not  merely  the  stipulation,  "  The  Imperial 
Chancellor,  to  be  appointed  by  the  Emperor,  shall  preside  in  the 
Bundesrath  and  supervise  the  conduct  of  its  business,"  but  also 
the  following  provision :  "  The  decrees  and  ordinances  of  the 
Emperor  shall  be  issued  in  the  name  of  the  Empire,  and  shall 
require  for  their  validity  the  countersignature  of  the  Imperial 
Chancellor,  who  thereby  assumes  the  responsibility  for  them."2 

Before  alluding  farther  to  this  matter  of  responsibility  it  will 
be  well  to  state  briefly  who  the  Chancellor  was  and  what  his  part 
was  in  carrying  on  the  work  of  government.  As  has  been  indi- 
cated, he  was  appointed  by  the  Emperor,  and  he  must  be  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Bundesrath ;   although  if  the  Emperor  desired  to  ap- 

1  On  the  military  and  naval  power  of  the  Emperor  see  Howard,  German  Empire, 
Chap,  xii;  Kriiger,  Government  and  Politics  of  the  German  Empire,  Chaps,  xii-xiii; 
and  Laband,  Deutsches  Reicksstaatsrecht,  345-359.  General  references  on  the  legal 
position  of  the  Emperor  include  Howard,  op.  cit.,  Chap,  iii;  Kriiger,  op.  cit.,  Chap, 
vii;  J.  \V.  Burgess,  "The  German  Emperor,"  in  Polit.  Sci.  Quar.,  June,  1888; 
Laband,  Das  deutschc  Kaiserthum  (Strassburg,  1896) ;  R.  Fiscner,  Das  Recht  dcs 
deutschen  Kaisers  (Berlin,  1895) ;  K.  Binding,  Die  rechiliche  Stettung  des  Kaisers 
(Dresden,  1898) ;  R.  Steinbach,  Die  rechtliche  Stellung  des  deutschen  Kaisers  ver- 
glichen  mil  des  Prdsidenlcn  der  Vercinigtcn  Staaten  von  Amerika  (Leipzig,  1903). 

2  Arts.  15  and  17.     Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  I,  331. 


634  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

point  a  man  who  at  the  moment  had  not  a  scat  in  that  body,  he 
( ould  easily  do  so,  since  as  king  of  Prussia  he  also  named  Prussia's 
Bundesrath  delegates.  Speaking  broadly,  the  functions  of  the 
Chancellor  were  twofold.    The  in  from  his  position  in 

Bundesrath.  Not  only  did  he  represenl  in  that  body,  as 
did  his  Prussian  colleagues,  the  king  of  Prussia;  he  was  vested 
with  the  chairmanship  of  it  and  with  the  supervision  of  its 
business.  He  fixed  the  dales  of  its  sessions.  Through  his  hands 
passed  all  communications  and  proposals,  from  the  states  as  well 
as  from  the  Reichstag,  addressed  to  it,  and  he  was  its  representa- 
tive in  all  of  its  external  relations.  In  the  name  of  the  Emperor 
he  laid  before  the  Reichstag  all  measure-  enacted  by  the  Bundes- 
rath ;  and  as  a  member  of  the  Bundesrath,  although  not  as  Im- 
perial Chancellor,  he  appeared  on  the  floor  of  the  Reichstag  to 
advocate  and  explain  proposed  Legislation.  Measures  eni 
into  law  were  binding  only  after  they  had  been  proclaimed  by  the 
Chancellor,  in  the  name  of  the  Emperor,  such  proclamation  being 
made  normally  in  the  official  ReicJisgcsctzblatl. 

A  second  function,  so  inextricably  intertwined  with  those  just 
mentioned  as  to  be  sometimes  not  clearly  distinguishable  in  prac- 
tice from  them,  was  that  which  arose  from  the  Chancellor's 
position  as  the  principal  executive  official  of  the  Empire,  second 
only  to  the  Emperor  himself.  As  has  been  pointed  out,  the 
work  of  administration  was  largely  decentralized,  being  left  to 
the  states;  but  the  ultimate  administrative  authority  was  very 
highly  centralized,  being  gathered  in  the  hands  of  the  Cham  ellor 
in  a  measure  not  paralleled  in  any  other  nation  of  western  Europe. 
As  an  executive  and  administrative  official,  the  Chancellor  has 
been  described  with  aptness  as  the  Emperor's  "  other  self." 
He  was  appointed  by  the  Emperor;  he  could  be  dismissed  by 
him  ;  he  performed  his  functions  solely  as  his  agent  and  assistant . 

Prior  to  1870,  the  executive  functions  of  the  Confederation 
were  vested  in  a  single  department,  the  Bundeskanzleramt,  or 
Federal  Chancery,  which  was  organized  in  three  sections  —  the 
"  central  office,"  the  postal  office,  and  the  bureau  of  telegraphs. 
For  the  time  being,  affairs  pertaining  to  the  army,  the  navy,  and 
foreign  relations  were  confided  to  the  care  of  the  appropriate  min- 
istries of  Prussia.  In  1870  a  separate  federal  department  of 
foreign  affairs  was  created,  and  in  the  following  year  a  federal 
department  of  marine.  One  by  one,  other  departments  were 
established,  until  in  1879  the  process  was  completed  by  the  con- 
version of  what  remained  of  the  Bundeskanzleramt  into  a  depart- 
ment of  the  interior.     The  status  of  these  departments,  however, 


THE  IMPERIAL  GERMAN  GOVERNMENT  635 

was  from  the  outset  totally  unlike  that  of  the  corresponding 
branches  of  other  governments.  They  were,  in  effect,  only 
bureaus  of  the  Imperial  Chancery,  and  their  heads  formed  in 
no  sense  a  collegiate  ministry  or  cabinet.  Each  official  in  charge 
of  a  department  owed  his  position  absolutely  to  the  Chancellor, 
to  whom  ■ —  rather  than  to  either  the  Reichstag  or  the  Emperor 
—  he  was  directly  responsible.  Some  of  the  more  important 
officials  bore  the  title  of  "  secretary  of  state,"  but  in  any  case 
they  were  legally  nothing  more  than  expert  and  essentially  non- 
political  functionaries  of  the  administrative  hierarchy,  answer- 
able to  the  Chancellor  for  all  that  they  did.1  Of  principal  depart- 
ments there  were  seven :  the  Foreign  Office,  the  Colonial  Office, 
the  Home  Office,  the  Department  of  Justice,  the  Treasury,  the 
Admiralty,  and  the  Post-Office.  In  the  nature  of  things,  some 
were  more  important  than  others ;  and  in  addition  there  were 
several  Imperial  bureaus,  notably  those  of  Railways,  the  Bank, 
and  the  Debt  Commission.  Throughout  all  branches  of  the 
Imperial  administrative  service  appointments  and  dismissals  were 
made  by  the  Chancellor,  in  the  name  of  the  Emperor;  and  the 
same  authority  promulgated  all  important  administrative  regu- 
lations. 

Absence  of  Ministerial  Responsibility.  —  As  has  been  pointed 
out,  the  Imperial  constitution  said  that  the  decrees  and  ordi- 
nances of  the  Emperor  were  binding  only  if  they  bore  the  counter- 
signature of  the  Imperial  Chancellor,  "  who  thereby  assumes  the 
responsibility  for  them."  German  writers  on  constitutional  law 
have  produced  a  small  library  of  monographs  on  the  subject  of 
the  Chancellor's  responsibility.  Some  regard  it  as  a  legal  respon- 
sibility, some  as  political,  some  as  only  moral.  Furthermore, 
to  whom  did  responsibility  lie?  The  constitution  made  no 
answer,  and  various  views  have  been  put  forward.  How  was  re- 
sponsibility to  be  enforced?  Again  the  constitution  was  silent 
and  the  commentators  disagreed. 

The  truth  is  that  most  of  the  discussion  merely  befogs  a  situa- 
tion which  to  the  detached  observer  is  perfectly  clear.  The 
clause  cited  was  an  excrescence  upon  the  real,  organic  constitution 
of  1867,  devised  merely  to  allay  criticism,  and  having  no  actual 
worth  or  meaning.     It  was  appropriated  almost  bodily  from  the 

1  At  the  same  time  it  is  to  be  observed  that,  in  practice,  the  more  important 
state  secretaries  were  apt  to  sustain  a  relation  with  the  other  organs  of  government 
which  was  somewhat  closer  than  might  be  inferred  from  what  has  been  said.  Oc- 
casionally they  sat  in  the  Bundesrath,  and  by  reason  of  that  fact  were  privileged 
to  defend  their  measures  in  person  on  the  floor  of  the  Reichstag.  Frequently,  too, 
they  were  members  of  the  Prussian  ministry. 


636  GOVERNMEN  rs  OF    EI  ROPE 

constitution  of  the  kingdom  of  Prussia,  where  also  the  provision 
of  little  real  import.  In  the  sense  in  which  the  ministers  of 
land  and   France  arc   responsible,   the  German  Chancellor 

was  not  responsible  a1  all.     He  was  answerable  in  all  matters  to 

his  Imperial  master,  who  could  instruct,  admonish,  censure,  or 
remove  him  at  any  moment.  But,  whatever  theories  may  be 
spun  upon  the  subject,  other  responsibility,  in  practice,  he  had 
none.  Heme  it  matters  very  little  whether  his  hypothetical 
responsibility       to  Bundesrath,  to  Reichstag,  or  to  some  other 

QCy  was  legal  or  political.  No  machinery  whatsoever  was 
provided  for  the  enforcement  of  responsibility  to  any  authority 
except  the  Emperor.  The  ministers  in  turn,  being  subject  to 
the  full  and  direct  control  of  the  Chancellor,  likewise  bore  no 
responsibility  except  to  him,  and  through  him  to  the  Emperor. 
"  In  Germany."  declared  Chancellor  von  Billow  in  1906,  "  the 
ministers  are  not  organs  of  the  Parliament  and  of  its  temporary 
majority,  but  they  are  the  intrusted  representatives  of  the 
Crown."  In  an  impassioned  speech  in  the  Reichstag  in  191 2, 
prompted  by  a  storm  of  protest  against  the  Emperor's  alleged 
threat  to  withdraw  the  newly  granted  constitution  of  Alsace- 
Lorraine.  Chancellor  von  Bethmann-Hollweg  stated  the  theory 
and  fact  of  his  office  thus:  "  No  situation  has  been  created  for 
which  I  cannot  take  the  responsibility.  As  long  as  I  stand  in 
this  place  I  shield  the  Emperor.  This  not  for  the  courtier's 
considerations,  of  which  I  know  nothing,  but  as  in  duty  bound. 
When  I  cannot  satisfy  this  my  duty  you  will  see  me  no  more  in 
this  place."  These  several  statements  were  literally  true,  and 
never  more  so  than  in  the  days  of  the  chancellors  who  uttered 
them.  Bismarck  enjoyed  a  large  measure  of  independence. 
But  William  II's  chancellors  —  even  the  independent-spirited 
Caprivi  and  von  Bulow,  ever  jealous  of  his  personal  prestige - 
tended  to  become  mere  personal  secretaries,  with  very  little 
power  of  initiative.  To  do  the  Kaiser's  bidding  was  their  sole 
function.1 

Up  to  the  armistice  of  191 8,  at  all  events,  the  cabinet  system 
of  government,  whose  corner-stone  is  the  full  and  continuous 
responsibility  of  the  executive  to  an  elected  parliamentary 
assembly,  did  not  exist  within  the  length  and  breadth  of  Germany. 
There  had  long  been  strong  demand  for  it  by  the  liberal  elements, 
including  in  later  days  the  Liberal,  Radical,  and  Social-Demo- 

1  Shepard,  "Tendencies  toward  Ministerial  Responsibility,"  Am.  PoHt.Sci.  Rev., 
Feb.,  ion.     Cf.  J.  Barthelemy,  Les  institutions  poliliques  de  V AUemagne  contem- 

porainr  (Paris,  1015),  Chap.  iii. 


THE   IMPERIAL   GERMAN   GOVERNMENT  637 

cratic  parties ;  and  observers  had  sometimes  thought  that  they 
detected  signs  of  its  development.  But  the  Imperial  government 
was  always  able  to  do  business  without  for  a  moment  admitting 
the  right  of  the  Reichstag  to  unseat  the  Chancellor  or  any  of  his 
subordinates  by  an  adverse  vote.  The  Chancellor  might,  of 
course,  be  criticized,  and  the  proposals  which  he  introduced  might 
be  defeated ;  expediency  might  even  require  his  removal  by  his 
Imperial  master ;  but  he  never  felt  obliged  to  retire  merely  by 
reason  of  lack  of  support  in  the  legislative  chamber,  as  would  a 
British  or  a  French  minister  similarly  situated.  This  does  not 
mean  that  the  defeat  of  a  government  measure  might  not  tend 
to  produce  the  practical  effect  of  a  parliamentary  vote  of  "  want 
of  confidence."  It  means  simply  that  the  Chancellor,  in  such  a 
case,  was  under  no  admitted  obligation  to  resign.  The  retirement 
of  Chancellor  von  Biilow  in  1909  was  more  nearly  involuntary 
than  that  of  any  of  his  three  predecessors ;  but  persons  most 
conversant  with  the  circumstances  agree  that  it  was  intended  to 
involve  no  acknowledgment  of  responsibility  to  the  nation's 
elected  representatives.  The  situation  was  simply  one  in  which 
legislation  had  become  impossible  because  the  Chancellor  was 
unwilling  to  enter  into  a  compromise  with  the  Conservative- 
Clerical  majority  in  the  Reichstag  on  his  proposed  taxation  of 
inheritances  and  other  financial  reforms.1 

The  Bundesrath :  Origins  and  Composition.  —  If  the  chancel- 
lorship was  without  a  counterpart  among  modern  governments, 
no  less  so  was  the  Federal  Council,  or  Bundesrath.  No  feature 
of  the  German  political  system  was  more  extraordinary ;  none, 
as  one  writer  has  observed,  was  more  thoroughly  native.2  The 
Bundesrath  was  not  an  "  upper  house,"  nor  even,  in  the  ordinary 
sense,  a  deliberative  chamber  at  all.  On  the  contrary,  it  was 
the  central  institution  of  the  whole  Imperial  system,  and  as  such 
it  was  endowed  with  a  broad  combination  of  functions  which  were 
not  only  legislative,  but  administrative,  consultative,  judicial, 
and  diplomatic. 

The  Bundesrath  was  composed  of  delegates  appointed  by  the 
princes  of  the  monarchical  states  and  by  the  senates  of  the  free 

1  On  the  status  and  functions  of  the  Chancellor  see  Howard,  German  Empire, 
Chap,  vii;  Kruger,  Government  and  Politics  of  the  German  Empire,  Chap,  viii; 
Laband,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  deutschen  Reiches,  §40;  Dupriez,  Les  ministres,  I, 
483-548;  Hensel,  "Die  Stellung  des  Reichskanzlers  nach  dem  Staatsrechte  des 
deutschen  Reiches,"  in  Hirth,  Ann.  des  deutschen  Reiches,  1882;  M.  I.  Tambaro, 
"La  transformation  des  pouvoirs  en  Allemagne,"  in  Rev.  du  Droit  Public,  July-Sept., 
1910. 

2  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  I,  259. 


638  GOVERNMENTS  OK   EUROPE 

cities.  The  original  Imperial  constitution  required  that  the  fifty- 
eight  votes  to  which  the  twenty-five  states  of  the  Confederation 
were  entitled  should  be  distributed  in  such  a  manner  that  Prussia 
would  have  seventeen,  Bavaria  six,  Saxony  four,  Wtirttemberg 

four,  Baden  three.  Hesse  three  Mecklenburg-Schwerin  two. 
Brunswick  two.  and  the  seventeen  1  Ltes  one  apiece.    Save 

for  the  increase  of  the  Bavarian  quota  from  four  to  six,  and  of  the 
Prussian  from  four  to  seventeen,  these  numbers  were  simply 
carried  over  from  the  Diet  of  the  Confederation  of  181 5.  The 
Prussian  increase  arose,  in  1866,  from  the  absorption  of  Hanover, 
Hesse-Cassel,  Holstein-Lauenburg,  Nassau,  and  Frankfort;  the 
Bavarian,  from  a  customs  union  treaty  of  July  8,  1867.  Subse- 
quent to  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  of  1871  Prussia  acquired, 
by  contract,  the  vote  of  the  government  of  Waldeck;  also, 
through  the  establishment  in  1884  85  of  a  perpetual  Prussian 
regency  in  Brunswick,  the  two  votes  to  which  that  state  was 
entitled ;  so  that  the  total  of  the  votes  controlled  by  the  govern- 
ment of  Prussia  was  raised,  for  all  practical  purposes,  to  twenty. 
Under  the  Alsace-Lorraine  Constitution  Act  passed  in  191 1  the 
Reichsland  became  entitled  to  three  votes  in  the  Bundesrath. 
bringing  up  the  total  to  sixty-one.  These  three  votes  were  cast 
by  delegates  appointed  by  the  Stalthallcr,  or  governor,  of  the  terri- 
tory ;  and  since  he  was  appointed  by  the  Emperor,  the  votes 
would  normally  be  subject  to  control  by  Prussia.  The  law  pro- 
vided, however,  that  the  Alsatian  votes  should  not  be  counted 
in  favor  of  Prussia  unless  she  would  have  a  majority  without  them, 
and  that  they  should  in  no  case  be  counted  upon  constitutional 
amendments  or  in  case  of  a  tie. 

It  may  be  observed  that  the  allotment  of  votes  for  which  pro- 
vision was  made  in  the  constitution  of  1867-71  was  largely 
arbitrary.  That  is  to  say,  except  for  the  quotas  of  Prussia  and 
Bavaria,  it  was  carried  over  from  the  constitution  of  C815,  with 
no  attempt  to  apportion  voting  power  among  the  several  states 
in  exact  relation  to  population,  wealth,  or  importance.  Upon 
any  one  of  these  bases  Prussia  must  have  been  given  an  absolute 
majority,  rather  than  a  scant  third.  In  1867  the  population  of 
Prussia  was  four  fifths  of  that  of  the  North  German  Confedera- 
tion;  in  1871,  two  thirds  of  that  of  the  Empire.  The  arrange- 
ment by  which  Prussia  intrusted  to  the  minor  states  a  total  of 
forty-one  votes,  while  she  retained  only  seventeen,  was  designed 
by  Bismarck  as  a  means  of  disabusing  those  states  of  the  idea  that 
they  stood  in  danger  of  Prussian  domination.  At  the  same  time, 
an  absolute  control  over  the  amending  of  the  Imperial  constitu- 


THE  IMPERIAL  GERMAN   GOVERNMENT  639 

tion,  arising  from  the  rule  already  explained,1  safeguarded  essen- 
tial Prussian  interests. 

The  Bundesrath  :  Organization  and  Procedure.  —  Every  state 
of  the  Empire  was  authorized,  although  not  required,  to  send  to 
the  Bundesrath  a  number  of  delegates  identical  with  the  number 
of  votes  to  which  it  was  entitled.  The  full  quota  of  members 
was  therefore  sixty-one.  Legally,  and  to  a  large  extent  prac- 
tically, the  status  of  the  delegate  was  that,  not  of  a  senator,  but 
of  a  diplomat ;  and  the  Emperor  was  required  to  extend  to  the 
members  of  the  body  the  "  customary  diplomatic  protection." 2 
Delegates  were  usually  officials  (frequently  ministers)  of  the  states 
which  they  represented.  By  custom,  they  were  in  earlier  times 
appointed  afresh  for  each  session,  but  for  years  before  the  Great 
War  the  body  was  almost  continuously  in  session ;  so  that  new 
appointments  were  made  whenever  the  state  government  de- 
sired. Members  could  be  recalled  or  replaced  at  any  time.  The 
purely  federal  character  of  the  Bundesrath  was  farther  emphasized 
by  two  principal  facts.  -  The  delegates  spoke  and  acted  and  voted, 
not  at  their  own  discretion,  but  under  specific  instructions  of  the 
governing  authorities  by  whom  they  were  accredited.  Only 
rarely  did  their  instructions  allow  them  any  considerable  measure 
of  independence.  Strictly,  the  Bundesrath  was  not  a  delibera- 
tive assembly  at  all ;  although,  unlike  the  former  Diet,  it  was 
something  more  than  a  meeting  of  ambassadors  of  the  states. 
In  the  second  place,  the  votes  cast  were  the  votes,  not  of  the  in- 
dividual members,  but  of  the  states,  and  they  were  cast  in  in- 
divisible blocks  by  the  delegations  of  the  states,  regardless  of  the 
number  of  members  in  attendance.  Thus,  Bavaria  was  entitled 
to  six  votes.  Whatever  the  individual  opinions  of  the  six  Ba- 
varian delegates,  the  six  Bavarian  votes  were  cast  solidly  upon 
any  question  that  might  arise.  It  was  not  necessary  that  six 
delegates  actually  participate  in  the  decision ;  indeed,  the  de- 
cision, if  the  matter  was  an  important  one,  was  likely  to  be  dic- 
tated by  the  home  government  and  not  formulated  by  the  del- 
egates at  all.  A  single  delegate  might  cast  the  entire  quota  of 
votes  to  which  his  state  was  entitled.  The  twenty  votes  con- 
trolled by  Prussia  were  therefore  always  cast  in  a  block,  from 
which  it  followed  that  the  Prussian  will  usually  prevailed  in  the 
chamber.  On  several  occasions  the  smaller  states  were  able  to 
combine  in  sufficient  numbers  to  defeat  a  project  upon  which 
Prussia  was  bent,  but  such  an  action  was  exceptional. 

1  See  p.  621. 

2  Art.  10.     Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  I,  330. 


C40  GOVERNMEN  rs   01     El  ROPE 

The  Bundesrath  could  be  convened  by  the  Emperor,  which  in 

effect  meant  by  the  Chancellor,  al  any  time.     Practically,  as 

as  been  said,  it  was  in  session  continuously.     The  Chancellor 

presided,  excepl  when  he  designated  some  other  member  to  act 

in  his  stead.  Every  member  of  the  Confederation,  i.e..  every 
tate,  had  a  right  to  make  motions  and  bring  in  measures.  The 
Emperor,  as  such,  was  debarred  from  introducing  proposals.  But 
as  king  of  Prussia  he  could  bring  forward  any  project  through  the 
medium  of  the  Prussian  delegation  ;  and  in  actual  practice  it  was 
not  always  deemed  necessary  to  resort  to  this  subterfuge.  The 
body  invariably  sat  behind  closed  doors  ;  and  although  ordinarily 
upon  the  conclusion  of  a  sitting  a  statement  regarding  the  pro- 
ceedings was  given  to  the  press,  the  members  might  decide  to 
withhold  such  information  altogether.  With  a  few  exceptions, 
a  simple  majority  of  the  sixty-one  votes  was  sufficient  for  the  adop- 
tion of  a  measure.  In  the  event  of  a  tic,  the  Prussian  delegation 
had  the  deciding  voice.  The  principal  limitations  upon  decisions 
by  simple  majority  were :  (i)  any  proposal  to  amend  the  consti- 
tution could  be  rejected  by  as  few  as  fourteen  votes,  whence,  as 
has  been  explained,  it  arose  that  Prussia  had  an  absolute  veto 
on  amendments  ;  and  (2)  when  there  was  a  division  upon  proposed 
legislation  relating  to  military  affairs,  the  navy,  trie  tariff,  and 
various  consumption  taxes,  the  vote  of  Prussia  prevailed  if  it 
was  cast  in  favor  of  maintaining  the  status  quo} 

The  work  of  the  Bundesrath  consisted  largely  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  measures  for  the  consideration  of  the  Reichstag,  and  a 
considerable  share  of  its  labor  was  performed  in  committees. 
Of  permanent  committees  there  were  twelve  —  eight  provided 
for  in  the  constitution  and  four  existing  by  virtue  of  standing 
orders.  The  committees  required  by  the  constitution  were 
those  on  the  army  and  fortifications  ;  marine  ;  customs  and  taxes ; 
commerce  and  trade ;  railroads,  posts,  and  telegraphs ;  judicial 
affairs;  accounts;  and  foreign  relations.  Committees  were 
made  up  for  a  year  at  a  time.  Under  certain  limitations  they 
were  chosen  by  the  Bundesrath  itself,  by  secret  ballot;  except 
that  the  Emperor  appointed  the  members  of  the  committee  on 
the  marine  and  all  but  one  of  the  members  of  the  committee  on 
the  army  and  fortifications.  Strictly,  however,  the  Bundesrath 
merely  decided  by  ballot  the  states  which  should  be  represented  on 
each  committee,  leaving  to  the  states  themselves  the  right  to 
name  their  representatives.  All  permanent  committees  consisted 
of  seven  members,   save  that  on  the  marine,  which  had  five; 

1  Art.  5.     Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  I,  328. 


THE   IMPERIAL   GERMAN  GOVERNMENT  641 

and  each  included  representatives  of  at  least  five  states.  Prussia 
held  all  chairmanships  except  that  of  the  committee  on  foreign 
affairs,  which  belonged  to  Bavaria. 

The  Bundesrath :  Functions  and  Powers.  The  pivotal 
position  which  the  Bundesrath  occupied  in  the  German  consti- 
tutional system  meant  that  the  functions  of  the  body  were  funda- 
mental and  its  powers  comprehensive.  Its  work  was  in  the  main 
legislative  and  fiscal,  but  also  in  part  executive  and  judicial. 
The  constitution  stipulated  that  the  legislative  power  of  the 
Empire  should  be  exercised  by  the  Bundesrath  and  the  Reichstag, 
and  that  a  majority  of  the  votes  of  both  bodies  should  be  necessary 
and  sufficient  for  the  enactment  of  a  law.  The  right  of  initiating 
legislation  was  expressly  conferred  upon  the  Reichstag,  but  in 
practice  it  was  exercised  almost  exclusively  by  the  Bundesrath. 
Even  finance  bills  regularly  originated  in  the  superior  body.  Un- 
der normal  procedure,  bills  were  prepared,  discussed,  and  voted 
in  the  Bundesrath,  submitted  to  the  Reichstag  for  consideration 
and  acceptance,  and  returned  for  farther  scrutiny  by  the  Bundes- 
rath before  their  promulgation  by  the  Emperor.  In  any  case, 
the  final  approval  of  a  measure  must  take  place  in  the  Bundes- 
rath. Speaking  broadly,  the  Bundesrath  made  law,  with  merely 
the  assent  of  the  Reichstag. 

The  Bundesrath's  executive  functions  represented  a  curious 
admixture,  but  the  sum  total  was  considerable.  In  the  first 
place,  the  body  had  supplementary  administrative  powers.  The 
constitution  required  it  to  take  action  upon  "  the  general  admin- 
istrative provisions  and  arrangements  necessary  for  the  execution 
of  the  Imperial  laws,  so  far  as  no  other  provision  is  made  by  law," 
as  well  as  upon  "  the  defects  which  may  be  discovered  in  the  execu- 
tion of  the  Imperial  laws."1  This  function  was  performed  through 
ordinances  so  devised  as  not  to  contravene  the  constitution, 
existing  law,  or  the  proper  prerogatives  of  any  constituted  author- 
ity, Imperial  or  state.  In  the  second  place,  certain  powers  vested 
in  the  Emperor  could  be  exercised  only  with  the  Bundesrath's 
consent.  Most  important  of  these  were:  (1)  declaring  war, 
save  in  the  event  of  an  attack  upon  the  territory  or  coasts  of  the 
Empire ;  (2)  concluding  treaties,  in  so  far  as  they  related  to  matters 
falling  within  the  range  of  Imperial  legislation ;  and  (3)  carrying 
out  an  "  execution  "  against  a  delinquent  state.  Finally,  cer- 
tain relations  were  maintained  with  the  Reichstag  which  in- 
volved the  exercise  of  authority  that  was  essentially  executive. 
With  the  assent  of  the  Emperor,  the  Bundesrath  might  dissolve 

1  Art.  7.     Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I,  329. 
2T 


642  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

the  popular  chamber;  and  every  member  of  the  Bundesrath  had 
a  right  to  appear  in  the  Reichstag  and  to  be  heard  there  at  any 
time  upon  his  own  request,  somewhat  after  the  manner  of  a  min- 
ister in  a  parliamentary  government.  It  should  be  observed, 
however,  thai  the  members  of  the  Bundesrath  were  authorized 
to  appear  in  the  Reichstag,  not  for  the  purpose  of  advocating  a 
measure  whit  h  the  Bundesrath  had  enacted,  or  would  be  willing 
to  enact,  but  simply  to  voice  the  interests  or  demands  of  their 
<>wn  states.  Large  functions  in  connection  with  public  finance, 
likewise,  were  vested  in  the  body.  It  prepared  tin- annual  budget, 
audited  the  accounts  which  the  Empire  carried  with  the  stat< s, 
and  maintained  important  supervisory  relations  with  the  Im- 
perial Bank,  the  Imperial  Debt  Commission,  and  other  fiscal 
agencies.  Lastly,  it  participated  in  the  power  of  appointment; 
for  although  that  power,  as  such,  was  vested  in  the  Kmperor, 
officials  of  some  kinds,  e.g.,  judges  of  the  Imperial  Court,  were 
actually  chosen  by  the  Bundesrath,  and  in  many  other  instances 
the  body  preserved  an  acknowledged  right  to  approve  appoint- 
ments made. 

In  its  judicial  capacity  the  Bundesrath  sat  as  a  supreme  court 
of  appeal,  to  which  cases  might  be  carried  from  the  tribunals  of 
a  state  when  it  could  be  shown  that  justice  was  not  to  be  had  in 
those  tribunals.  It  served  also  as  a  court  of  last  resort  for  the 
settlement  of  disputes  between  the  Imperial  government  and  a 
state ;  or  between  two  states,  when  the  point  at  issue  was  not  a 
matter  of  private  law  and  when  a  definite  request  for  action 
was  made  by  one  of  the  parties.  Finally,  in  disputes  relating 
to  constitutional  questions  in  states  whose  constitution  did  not 
designate  an  authority  for  the  settlement  of  such  differences, 
the  Bundesrath  was  required,  at  the  request  of  one  of  the  parties, 
to  effect  an  amicable  adjustment ;  or,  if  this  proved  impossible, 
to  see  to  it  that  the  issue  was  settled  by  Imperial  law. 

Such  an  aggregate  of  powers  made  the  Bundesrath  easily  the 
dominating  element  in  the  Imperial  government,  second,  in  law 
at  all  events,  not  even  to  the  Emperor  himself.  I  )efcnders  of  the 
former  German  system  have  long  been  accustomed  to  argue  that . 
since  the  body  was  largely  composed  of  ministers  and  other 
officials  of  the  various  states,  it  was  the  most  experienced  and 
efficient  legislative  chamber  in  the  world ;  and  they  insisted  that 
it  was  not  reactionary  or  unduly  conservative.  There  is,  how- 
ever, no  disguising  the  fact  that  the  members  were  appointed 
by  monarchs  or  aristocratic  senates,  that  they  were  the  spokes- 
men of  these  non-popular  authorities  and  were  in  all  respects 


THE   IMPERIAL  GERMAN  GOVERNMENT  643 

controlled  by  them,  and  that  the  body  was  the  bulwark  of  the 
forces  that  have  always  been  opposed  to  change.  An  absolute 
condition  of  the  establishment  of  democratic  government  in  the 
country  was  the  abolition  of  the  Bundesrath,  or  a  complete  trans- 
formation of  it  in  both  composition  and  powers.1 

The  Reichstag :  Composition  and  Electoral  System.  —  In 
contrast  with  the  Bundesrath,  which  was  organized  on  a  purely 
federal  basis,  the  Reichstag  was  broadly  national.  It  represented 
not  the  states,  nor  yet  the  people  of  the  states,  but  the  people  of 
the  Empire  as  a  whole.  •  From  what  has  been  said  concerning  the 
elements  of  autocracy  and  bureaucracy  in  the  German  system 
it  follows  that  there  was  no  room  in  that  system  for  a  parlia- 
mentary chamber  of  the  nature  of  the  British  House  of  Commons 
or  of  the  French  Chamber  of  Deputies.  None  the  less,  restricted 
as  were  its  functions,  the  Reichstag  was  one  of  the  world's  most 
interesting  legislative  bodies;  and,  being  the  one  democratic 
element  known  to  the  Imperial  constitution,  it  had  peculiar 
importance  as  the  basis  upon  which  any  new  and  popular  scheme 
of  government  would  have  to  be  built. 

Under  provision  of  the  constitution,  members  of  the  Reichs- 
tag were  chosen  for  a  term  of  five  years,2  by  direct  and  secret 
ballot,  at  an  election  which  took  place  on  a  given  day  throughout 
the  entire  Empire.  The  number  of  seats,  fixed  by  the  constitu- 
tion of  1871  at  382,  was,  by  law  of  June  25,  1873,  providing  for 
the  election  of  fifteen  members  from  Alsace-Lorraine,  increased 
to  397;  and  it  subsequently  stood  unchanged.  The  electoral 
"  circles,"  or  districts,  each  of  which  returned  one  member,  were 
laid  out  originally  in  such  a  manner  as  to  contain  100,000  inhabi- 
tants each,  and  also  in  such  a  way  that  no  district  embraced  por- 
tions of  two  or  more  states.  Prussia  was  allotted  235  members, 
Bavaria  48,  Saxony  23,  and  other  states  smaller  numbers,  eleven 
having  only  one  member  each.  The  election  law  of  May  31, 
1869,  provided  that  arrangements  for  redistributions  of  seats  in 
accordance  with  changes  of  population  should  be  made  by  future 
laws.  But  no  such  legislation  was  ever  enacted,  and  no  reap- 
portionment took  place  after  1871.     The  development  of  Ger- 

1  On  the  Bundesrath  see  Kriiger,  Government  and  Politics  0}  the  German  Empire, 
Chap,  vi;  Howard,  German  Empire,  Chap,  iv ;  J.  H.  Robinson,  "The  German 
Bundesrath,"  in  Pub.  of  Univ.  of  Pa.,  Ill  (Philadelphia,  1891) ;  Laband,  Das 
Staatsrecht  des  deutschen  Retches,  §§  27-31 ;  Lebon,  Etudes  stir  V Allemagne  politique, 
137-151;  Dupriez,  Les  viinistres,  I,  505-523;  Zorn,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  deutschen 
Reiches,  I,  136-160;  E.  Kliemke,  Die  Staatsrechtliche  Natur  mid  Stcllung  des 
Bundesrathes  (Berlin,  1894) ;  A.  Herwegen,  Reichsverfassung  undBundesrat  (Cologne, 
1902). 

2  The  term  was  changed  from  three  years  to  five  in  1888. 


G0\  ERNM1  NTS  OJ     II  ROPE 

many  as  a  great  industrial  and  commercial  nation  fell  mainly 
within  this  period,  resulting  in  enormous  shifts  of  population  from 

one  part  of  the  country  to  another,  and  especially  from  rural 
localities  to  the  towns.  The  result  was  the  grossest  inequality 
of  electoral  constituencies  to  be  found  anywhere  in  the  world. 
In  the  rural  province  of  East  Prussia,  shortly  before  the  Greal 
War.  the  average  number  of  voters  in  a  district  was  121,000; 
in  Berlin  it  was  ^45,000.  Twelve  of  the  most  populous  districts 
represented  in  the  Reichstag  contained  i.oso.ooo  voters;  twelve 
ni  the  least  populous,  170,000.  The  district  of  Schaumburg- 
Lippe  had  but  9891.  There  had  long  been  urgent  demand  for  a 
reapportionment.  But  the  Imperial  authorities  firmly  held  out 
against  it,  urging  with  all  possible  force  that  representation  ought 
to  be  by  interests,  rather  than  by  mere  numbers,  and  that  tin- 
existing  distribution  was.  measured  in  this  way.  entirely  satis- 
factory. The  real  reason  for  this  obstructionist  attitude  is  aol 
difficult  to  discover :  any  change  would  mean  a  doubling  or 
tripling  of  deputies  returned  by  urban  constituencies,  with  the 
effect  of  greatly  increasing  the  already  fast  growing  quota  of 
Socialist  and  other  radical  members. 

The  suffrage,  however,  was  reasonably  democratic.  Male 
citizens  twenty-five  years  of  age  and  upwards,  and  duly  registered, 
were  entitled  to  vote  in  the  district  in  which  they  resided ;  the 
only  classes  disqualified  were  persons  under  guardianship, 
bankrupts,  beneficiaries  of  public  charity,  persons  suffering  ju- 
dicial deprivation  of  certain  of  their  rights  as  citizens,  and  persons 
in  active  service  in  the  army  and  navy.  There  was  no  plural 
voting.  Any  qualified  voter  who  had  been  a  citizen  of  any  one 
of  the  states  for  one  year  might  be  elected.  Electoral  procedure 
was  regulated  by  the  election  law  of  1S69.  amended  in  minor  par- 
ticulars at  later  dates,  and  extended  in  187 1  and  [873  to  the  south- 
ern states  and  to  Alsace-Lorraine  respectively.  Elections  were 
held  uniformly  throughout  the  Empire  on  a  day  fixed  by  Imp 
ordinance.  In  the  event  of  a  dissolution  before  the  end  of  the 
five-year  term,  an  election  was  required  to  be  held  within  a  period 
of  sixty  days,  and  a  new  Reichstag  must  be  convened  not  less 
than  ninety  days  after  the  dissolution.  Each  constituency  was 
divided  into  districts,  and  in  each  district  the  lists  of  qualified 
voters  had  to  be  made  up  and  deposited  for  public  inspection 
at  least  four  weeks  before  the  election.  Secrecy  of  the-  ballot 
was  specially  safeguarded  by  regulations  enacted  in  1903.  Ea<  h 
voter,  upon  appearing  at  the  polls,  was  furnished  with  an  en- 
velope and  a  white  voting-paper  bearing  an  official  stamp.     In 


THE  IMPERIAL   GERMAN   GOVERNMENT  645 

a  compartment  arranged  for  the  purpose  in  the  polling  room  he 
marked  his  ballot  and  inclosed  it  in  the  envelope.  As  he  left 
the  room  he  handed  the  envelope  to  the  presiding  officer  or  de- 
posited it  in  a  voting  urn.  The  election  board  consisted  of  this 
presiding  officer,  his  deputy,  a  secretary,  and  three  to  six  assist- 
ants, all  of  whom  were  unpaid.  Polling  continued  from  10  a.m. 
to  7  p.m.,  after  which  the  board  counted  the  votes;  and  the  re- 
sults, together  with  all  the  ballots  and  other  documents,  were 
sent  to  the  election  commissioners  of  the  constituency,  who 
were  appointed  by  the  local  administrative  authorities.  For 
election  on  the  first  ballot  an  absolute  majority  of  the  votes  cast 
in  the  district  was  required.  If  no  candidate  obtained  such  a 
majority,  a  second  balloting  (Stichwahl)  followed  a  fortnight 
later,  when  a  choice  was  made,  not  as  in  France  among  all  candi- 
dates who  cared  to  remain  in  or  to  enter  the  race,  but  between  the 
two  who  upon  the  first  occasion  polled  the  largest  number  of 
votes.  In  the  rare  event  of  a  tie,  decision  was  by  lot.  On  ac- 
count of  the  division  of  the  voters  in  most  constituencies  among 
several  parties,  many  second  ballotings  were  required.  In  1907 
the  number  was  158;  in  1912,  191.  In  forty  per  cent  of  the 
cases  the  candidate  originally  receiving  a  plurality  finally  failed 
to  be  elected ;  and  the  system  usually  worked  out  to  the  advantage 
of  the  conservative  and  moderate  parties,  and  hence  to  the  dis- 
advantage of  the  Socialists.1 

The  Reichstag  :  Organization  and  Procedure.  —  The  consti- 
tution provided  that  the  Reichstag  should  meet  at  least  once  each 
year,  and  that  it  should  never  be  in  session  when  the  Bundesrath 
was  not ;  otherwise  the  Imperial  authorities  were  free  to  convoke 
sessions  at  will.  The  summons  was  issued  by  the  Emperor,  and 
sessions  were  opened  by  him,  in  person  or  by  proxy,  with  much 
ceremony.  He  could  prorogue  the  body  for  a  period  of  thirty 
days  without  its  consent,  and  with  the  assent  of  the  Bundesrath 
he  could  also  dissolve  it.  Attendance  at  the  meetings  was  al- 
ways scant.  An  Alsatian  deputy  who  took  his  seat  in  1898  says 
that  ordinarily  at  that  time  barely  sixty  of  the  members,  or  less 
than  one  sixth,  would  be  found  in  their  places ; 2  many  appeared 

1  See  A.  N.  Holcombe,  "Direct  Primaries  and  the  Second  Ballot,"  in  Am.  Polit. 
Sci.  Rev.,  Nov.,  191 1.  General  references  on  the  Imperial  electoral  system  include 
Kriiger,  Government  and  Politics  of  the  German  Empire,  Chap,  v ;  Howard,  German 
Empire,  Chap,  v;  Lebon,  Etudes  sur  VAUemagne  politique,  70-83;  ibid.,  "Etude 
sur  la  legislation  electorate  de  l'empire  dAllemagne,"  in  Bull,  de  Ligis.  Com  p., 
1879;  G.  Below,  Das  parlamenlarischc  Wahlrecht  in  Deutschland  (Berlin,  1909); 
and  M.  H.  Nezard,  "L'Evolution  du  suffrage  universel  en  Prusse  et  dans  l'Empire 
allemand,"  in  Rev.  du  Droit  Pub.,  Oct. -Dec,  1004. 

2  A.  Wetterle,  Behind  the  Scenes  in  the  Reichstag,  trans,  by  G.  F.  Lees  (New 
York,  i9i8),38. 


GCN  ERNMEN  rs   OB    EI  ROPE 

at  Berlin  only  at  limes  of  unusual  political  stress.  One  explana- 
tion, no  doubt,  was  the  assembly's  powerlessness.  But  another 
was  the  meager  compensation  allowed.  Bismarck  opp 
remuneration  of  any  sort,  and  the  [mperial  constitution  origi 
nally  provided  that  members  should,  as  such,  "draw  no  salary 
or  compensation."  They  wen-  to  be  allowed  to  travel  free  on 
the  railroads  between  their  residences  and  Berlin.  But  that  was 
all ;  and  when  the  Socialist  organizations  began  raising  iund>  for 
the  support  of  Socialist  members,  the  [mperial  Court  of  Appeal 
ruled  that  such  action  was  illegal.1  Early  in  the  presenl  a  ntury, 
however,  attendance  became  so  slender  that  it  was  often  difficult 
or  impossible  to  raise  a  quorum,  and  in  1906  Chancellor  von 
Biilow  grudgingly  agreed  to  meet  the  situation  by  providing  for 
salaries  to  be  paid  out  of  Ihe  Imperial  treasury.  The  salary 
established  -3000  marks  ($750)  a  year  —  was,  however,  only 
one  tenth  of  the  amount  paid  senators  and  representatives  in 
the  United  States,  and  it  had  only  a  moderate  effect  in  the  de- 
sired direction. 

The  Reichstag  regulated  its  own  procedure  and  discipline,  and 
elected  its  own  officers,  consisting  of  a  president,  two  vice-presi- 
dents, and  eight  secretaries.  Under  standing  orders  adopted  in 
1876.  the  president  and  the  vice-presidents  were  chosen  at  the 
opening  of  the  first  session  following  a  general  election  for  a 
temporary  term  of  four  weeks,  and  upon  the  expiration  of  this 
period  an  election  took  place  for  the  remainder  of  the  session.  At 
the  opening  of  each  succeeding  session  an  election  of  these  officials 
for  the  session  took  place  at  once.  The  secretaries  were  chosen 
at  the  beginning  of  each  session  for  the  entire  session.  All  of 
these  officers  were  regularly  elected  from  the  party  coalition  which 
at  the  time  commanded  a  majority.  In  191 2  the  Socialists 
succeeded  for  the  first  time  in  capturing  a  vice-presidency.  At 
the  opening  of  a  session  the  entire  membership  was  divided  by 
lot  into  seven  Abtheihingen,  or  bureaus,  as  nearly  equal  as  it  was 
■  »ssible  to  make  them.  The  bureaus  of  the  French  Chamber  of 
Deputies  are  made  up  afresh  once  a  month,  and  those  of  the  Ital- 
ian once  in  two  months,  but  those  of  the  Reichstag  remained 
unchanged  throughout  a  session,  unless  upon  motion  of  as  many 
as  fifty  members  the  body  decided  upon  a  fresh  distribution.  The 
functions  of  the  bureaus  were,  as  in  other  continental  countries. 
mainly  the  validation  of  credentials  of  members  of  the  chamber 
and  the  select'  >n  of  members  of  committees.  The  Reichstag 
had  but  one  standing  committee       that  on  elections.     All  others 

1  Cf.  the  Oiburnc  Judgment  of  1909  in  England  (see  p.  174). 


THE  IMPERIAL  GERMAN  GOVERNMENT  647 

were  made  up,  as  occasion  required,  by  the  appointment  by- 
ballot  of  an  equal  number  of  members  by  each  of  the  seven 
bureaus ;  although,  in  point  of  fact,  the  preparation  of  committee 
lists  fell  largely  to  the  party  leaders  of  the  chamber.  The  func- 
tion of  committees  was  to  give  preliminary  consideration  to  meas- 
ures, and  to  report  them,  and  evidence  relating  to  them,  to  the 
chamber.  Bills  were  not,  however,  in  all  cases  referred  to  com- 
mittees. 

The  hall  in  which  the  Reichstag  carried  on  its  deliberations  is 
semi-circular,  and  the  members  were  seated  in  the  manner  cus- 
tomary in  continental  legislatures,with  the  conservative  elements 
on  the  right  and  the  radical  groups  on  the  left  of  the  presiding 
officer.  Front  benches,  at  both  left  and  right,  were  reserved  for 
members  of  the  Bundesrath ;  for  all  these,  including  of  course 
the  Chancellor,  had  a  right  to  appear  and  speak,  although  tech- 
nically only  as  delegates  of  their  particular  governments.  De- 
baters addressed  the  chamber  from  the  platform  in  front  of  the 
president's  chair  or  from  their  seats  as  they  chose ;  and  they  spoke 
whenever  they  could  secure  the  recognition  of  the  presiding  offi- 
cial, not,  as  in  France,  in  the  hard  and  fast  order  indicated  by  a 
previously  prepared  written  list.  Like  the  Speaker  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  the  president  of  the  Reichstag  was  supposed  to  be 
a  strictly  non-partisan  moderator.  A  fixed  tradition  of  the  office 
was  that  during  debate  the  chair  should  alternately  recognize 
the  supporters  and  the  opponents  of  the  measure  under  considera- 
tion. As  a  general  rule,  closure  of  debate  could  be  ordered  upon 
the  motion  of  thirty  members. 

Unlike  the  sittings  of  the  Bundesrath,  which  always  took 
place  behind  closed  doors,  those  of  the  Reichstag  were,  by  consti- 
tutional provision,  public.  Under  the  standing  orders,  however, 
the  body  could  go  into  secret  session,  on  motion  of  the  president, 
or  of  ten  members.  Publicity  was  farther  assured  by  the  con- 
stitutional stipulation  that  no  one  should  be  "  held  responsible 
for  truthful  reports  of  the  proceedings  of  the  public  sessions  of 
the  Reichstag." 

The  Reichstag  :  Powers  and  Actual  Character.  —  Enough  has 
been  said  about  the  Bundesrath  to  make  it  clear  that  that  body 
was  no  ordinary  senate  or  upper  chamber.  Indeed  it  was  no 
upper  chamber  at  all;  for  the  Imperial  government  was  not  so 
organized  as  to  provide  for  a  bicameral  parliament  of  the  British 
or  the  French  type.  Rather,  the  Empire  had  essentially  a  uni- 
cameral parliament,  consisting  of  the  Reichstag  —  this  parlia- 
ment, however,  working  under  the  leadership  and  check  of  a 


GOV]  RNM1  \  rS  "i     EUROP1 

semi-legislative,  semi  executive  body,  the  Bundesrath,  which 
had  absolutely  qo  counterparl  in  any  other  European  country. 
On  the  face  of  things,  the  Reichstag  was  a  body  with  extensive 
authority;    the  legislative  power  of  the  Empire  was  expressl) 

ted  by  the  constitution  in  the  Rei<  hstag  and  the  Bundesrath, 
and  a  majority  vote  In  both  assemblages  was  necessary  for  the 
enactment  of  laws,  for  the  adoption  of  constitutional  amendments, 
and  for  the  ratification  of  every  treaty  touching  matters  "within 
tlu-  domain  of  Imperial  legislation."  In  point  of  fact,  however, 
the  functions  of  the  chamber  were  purely  subordinate,  and  its 
influence  upon  the  conduct  of  public  affairs  was  almost  negligible. 
The  reasons  are  not  far  to  seek.  In  the  first  place,  partly  by 
law  and  partly  by  custom,  the  initiative  in  legislation  lay  with 
the  Bundesrath.  A  chief  duty  of  that  body,  under  the  terms  of 
the  constitution,  was  indeed  to  prepare  measures  for  the  consider- 
ation of  the  popular  chamber.  Resolutions  might  originate  in  the 
keichstag,  and.  after  being  passed  there,  go  to  the  Bundesrath 
for  examination.  But  few  important  proposals  actually  started 
in  this  way,  and  even  the  great  pieces  of  finance  legislation  were 
formulated  in  the  federal  chamber.  The  Reichstag  could  hold 
up  legislation,  or  even  the  budget,  while  it  debated  and  criticized 
the  Bundesrath's  bill  or  the  policies  of  the  government.  But 
if  its  obstructiveness  was  carried  too  far,  there  were  clubs  that 
could  be  swung  over  its  head,  the  most  generally  effective  being 
the  threat  of  dissolution.  The  power  of  dissolution  was  exercised 
several  times  with  the  main,  or  sole,  purpose  of  putting  an  end 
to  opposition;  and  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  power  was 
wielded  without  a  shred  of  the  ministerial  responsibility  which 
is  its  very  basis  in  England  and  France. 

In  the  second  place,  the  Reichstag  was  wholly  without  means 
of  calling  the  executive  authorities  to  account.  As  has  been  em- 
phasized, neither  the  Chancellor  nor  the  ministers  recognized 
any  responsibility  to  the  popular  chamber  for  their  acts.  The 
standing  orders  solemnly  provided  for  interpellation.  But  the 
right  was  utterly  hollow.  There-  were  no  ministerial  officers  to 
whom  an  interpellation  could  be  directly  addressed  except  the 
Chancellor,  and  he  usually  showed  his  contempt  for  the  whole 
proceeding  by  absenting  himself  on  the  days  set  apart  for  the 
purpose.  In  ion  Chancellor  von  Bethmann-IIollweg  agreed 
to  a  change  of  the  rule  so  as  to  permit  a  vote  of  approbation  or 
censure  to  follow  an  interpellatory  debate.  The  Radicals  thought 
they  had  scored  a  victory;  but  they  soon  discovered  that  no 
matter  how  the  vote  went,  nothing  whatever  happened.     "  Put 


THE   IMPERIAL   GERMAN   GOVERNMENT  649 

me  in  a  minority,  if  it  so  please  you,"  the  Chancellor  continued 
to  say ;  "I  shall  remain  all  the  same  at  my  post  as  long  as  I 
retain  the  confidence  of  my  sovereign."  1 

Such  dumb-show  of  governmental  activity  could  hardly  have 
gone  on  for  decades  without  affecting  the  proceedings,  and  even 
the  personnel,  of  the  body  in  undesirable  ways.  The  effect  upon 
the  conduct  of  business  was  to  crush  out  honest  and  fruitful 
initiative  and  wholesome  effort  to  promote  the  public  welfare, 
and  to  substitute  either  an  attitude  of  discouragement  and  apathy 
or  a  disposition  to  grovel  and  barter  for  favors,  according  to  the 
moral  fiber  of  the  individual  or  the  group.  A  few  leaders,  the 
spokesmen  of  their  parties,  did  all  the  work  ;  the  mass  of  the  mem- 
bers voted  to  order,  often  without  even  studying  the  bills.  The 
reports  of  committees  were  short,  dry  analyses,  usually  actually 
written  by  government  officials  and  merely  signed  by  the  elected 
chairmen.  "  Above  all,"  once  said  a  cynical,  but  shrewd  and 
experienced,  Clerical  member  to  a  newcomer  to  whom  he  had 
taken  a  fancy,  "  attach  no  importance  to  the  noisy  declarations 
and  tragic  gestures  of  speakers  on  the  first  reading  of  a  bill.  All 
the  work  of  the  Reichstag  is  done  behind  the  scenes.  Our  party 
leaders  are  augurs  who  have  learned  to  look  at  each  other  in  pub- 
lic assembly  without  laughing ;  but,  surrounded  by  the  mystery 
of  their  private  counsels,  they  are  hand  and  glove  together.  I 
know  it  because  I  am  one  of  them.  Everything  is  compromise 
with  us.  We  set  up  a  noisy  opposition  only  to  obtain  privileges. 
.  .  .  All  [the  leaders]  are  in  continuous  relations  with  the  Wil- 
helmstrasse,  which  knows  their  ambitions  and  how  to  play  with 
them  skillfully.  People  abroad  believe  that  we  possess  a  national 
representation.  But  we  have  only  a  handful  of  operetta  con- 
spirators, whom  an  enlightened  stage-manager  directs  as  he  thinks 
fit.  With  us,  such  big  words  as  ministerial  responsibility,  liberty, 
and  democracy  have  no  meaning."  2 

There  is  a  certain  amount  of  exaggeration  in  this,  yet  it  lays 
bare  an  aspect  of  German  parliamentary  life  which  explains  many 
otherwise  inexplicable  acts  of  servility  on  the  part  of  the  Reichs- 
tag under  the  aggressive,  imperialistic  regime  of  William  II. 
It  is  generally  agreed,  too,  that  the  level  of  education  and  ability 
of  the  members  was  in  later  years  lower  than  in  the  early  history 
of  the  Empire.  In  1914  it  might  indeed  be  said  that,  outside  of 
the  Social  Democratic  group,  there  was  not  a  single  member  of 
the  Reichstag  who  carried  political  weight  and  authority  beyond 

1  Wetterle,  Behind  the  Scenes  in  the  Reichstag,  182. 

2  Ibid.,  84-85. 


650  GOVERNMENTS  01    EUROPE 

the  narrow  circle  of  his  own  political  adherents.  Writers  of 
German  extraction  have  sought  to  explain  the  decline  by  say- 
ing that  after  the  great  national  problem  of  unification  was 
solved  "the  detail  work  of  legislation  with  all  its  petty  strug- 
gles began,"  parties  lost  their  national  character  and  became 
the  representatives  of  special  economic  and  social  classes,  and 
of  statesmanlike  qualities  and  high  ideals  turned  away  in 
disgust,  leaving  the  seats  in  the  Reichstag  to  average  poli- 
ticians, or  worse.'  Another  explanation  given  is  that  the  in- 
crease of  the  Socialist  quota  meant  the  influx  of  large  numbers 
of  member^  of  limited  education  and  narrow  vision.  These 
views  are.  to  a  degree,  plausible.  Yet  the  citizen  of  a  demo- 
cratic country  cannot  repress  the  feeling  that  the  fundamental 
difficulty  lay  in  the  rigid  restrictions  which  of  themselves  were 
sufficient  to  reduce  a  promising  parliamentary  assemblage  to  a 
mere  "  debating  society,"  a  great  legislative  chamber  to  a  "  Hall 
of  Echo 

The  Codes  of  Law.  —  On  the  subject  of  the  administration  of 
justice  the  Imperial  constitution  of  1871  contained  but  a  single 
clause,  which  vested  in  the  Empire  power  of  "  general  legislation 
concerning  the  law  of  obligations,  criminal  law,  commercial  law 
and  commercial  paper,  and  judicial  procedure."  An  amend- 
ment adopted  in  1873  modified  the  clause  to  read,  "general 
legislation  as  to  the  whole  domain  of  civil  and  criminal  law  and  of 
judicial  procedure."3  Kadi  of  the  federated  states  has  always 
had  its  own  judicial  system,  and  justice  is  administered  almost 
exclusively  in  courts  that  belong  to  the  states.  These  courts, 
however,  have  been  declared  to  be  also  courts  of  the  Empire, 
or  present  Commonwealth;  and,  to  the  end  that  they  may  be 
systematized,  and  that  conditions  of  justice  may  be  made 
uniform -throughout  the  land,  the  federal  government  has  not 
hesitated  to  avail  itself  of  the  regulative  powers  conferred  in 
1871  and  amplified  in   187:,.     In  the  first  place,  the  past  gen- 

1  Kruger,  Government  mul  Politit  \  ofth  German  Empire,  59  60.  In  his  Imperial 
Germany  Prince  von  Biilow  3d  fortl  the  view  thai  the  Germans  are  deficient  in 
practical  political  sen  e,  ami  implii  thai  ii  is  impossible  to  intrust  to  the  people 
anagement  of  their  public  affairs  (pp.  1.30 

-On  tin-  Reichstag  see  ELruger,  Government  and  Politics  of  the  German  Empire, 
Chap.v;  Howard,  German  Empire,  Chap,  v;  Lebon,  "Le  Reichstag  allemand," 
in  Ann.  </<  re  des  Sci.  PoHL,  April.  1889;    ibid.,  Etudes  sur  VAUemagne 

politiqttr.  Chap,  ii;    Laband,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  dm:  hes,  $132-3%;   H. 

Robalskv.  Der  deutsche  Reichstag  (Berlin.  1897);  (;-  '■  "'■  '  ntersuchungen  fiber 
7ahlpriifung  deutschen  Reichstags   (Leipzig,  1908).     There  is  a  full 

discu-  '  ■   rman  methods  of  Legislation  in  Laband,  op.  ril..  §§  54-59. 

■?  An.  4.     Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I,  328. 


THE   IMPERIAL  GERMAN   GOVERNMENT  651 

eration  has  witnessed  a  unification  of  German  law  worthy  of 
comparison  with  the  systematization  of  the  law  of  France,  ac- 
complished through  the  Code  Napoleon.1  In  1871  the  Empire 
contained  more  than  two  score  districts  of  which  each  possessed  a 
distinct  body  of  civil  and  criminal  law ;  and,  to  add  to  the  con- 
fusion, the  boundaries  of  these  districts,  although  at  one  time 
identical  with  the  limits  of  the  various  political  divisions  of  the 
country,  were  no  longer  so.  The  case  of  Prussia  was  typical. 
In  1 87 1  the  older  Prussian  provinces  were  living  under  a  Prussian 
code  promulgated  in  1794;  the  Rhenish  provinces  held  to  the 
Code  Napoleon;  in  the  Pomeranian  districts  there  were  large 
survivals  of  Swedish  law ;  while  the  territories  acquired  after 
the  war  of  1866  had  each  its  indigenous  legal  system.  Only 
two  German  states  in  1871  had  a  fairly  uniform  body  of  law. 
Baden  had  adopted  a  German  version  of  the  Code  Napoleon, 
and  Saxony,  in  1865,  had  put  in  operation  a  code  of  her  own  de- 
vising. At  no  period  of  German  history  had  there  been  either 
effective  lawmaking  or  legal  codification  which  was  applicable 
to  the  whole  of  the  territory  contained  within  the  Empire. 

German  legal  reform  since  1871  has  consisted  principally  in  the 
formation  and  adoption  of  successive  codes,  each  aimed  at 
substantial  completeness  within  a  given  branch,  of  law.  The 
task  had  been  begun,  indeed,  before  1871.  As  early  as  1861 
the  states  had  agreed  upon  a  code  relating  to  trade  and  banking, 
and  this  code  had  been  readopted,  in  1869,  by  the  North  German 
Confederation.  In  1869  a  code  of  criminal  law  had  been  worked 
out  for  the  Confederation,  and  in  1870  a  code  relating  to  manu- 
factures and  labor.  Upon  the  establishment  of  the  Empire,  in 
1 871,  a  commission  was  created  to  draw  up  regulations  for  civil 
procedure  and  for  criminal  procedure,  and  also  a  plan  for  the 
reorganization  of  the  courts.  Beginning  with  a  scheme  of  civil 
procedure,  published  in  December,  1872,  the  commission  brought 
in  an  elaborate  project  upon  each  of  the  three  subjects.  The  Code 
of  Civil  Procedure,  which  introduced  many  important  reforms 
in  the  interest  of  publicity  and  speed,  was  well  received.  That 
relating  to  criminal  procedure,  proposing  as  it  did  to  abolish 
throughout  the  Empire  trial  by  jury,  was,  however,  vigorously 
opposed,  and  the  upshot  was  that  all  three  reports  were  referred 
to  a  new  commission,  which  completely  remodeled  the  original 
projects  relating  to  criminal  procedure  and  to  the  organization 
of  the  courts.  In  the  end  the  revised  projects  were  adopted. 
On  October  1,  1879,  a  group  of  fundamental  laws  went  into  effect 

1  See  p.  45°- 


G0\  ERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

under  which  the  administration  of  justice  throughout  the  entire 
country  has  been  controlled  to  the  present  day.  'The  most 
important  of  these  was  the  Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz,  or  Law  of 
Judicial  Organization,  enacted  January  -1;.  [877;  the  Cvoil- 
tsordnung,  or  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  of  January  30,  1877, 
and  the  Strafprozessordnung,  or  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  of 
February  1,  1877.  It  remained  only  to  effect  a  codification  oi  the 
civil  law.  A  committee  set  up  for  this  purpose  completed  its 
work  in  1887.  and  the  draft  which  it  submitted  was  placed  for 
revision  in  the  hands  of  a  new  commission,  which  reported  in  [895. 
In  an  amended  form,  the  Civil  ("ode  was  approved  by  the  Reichs- 
August  18,  1896;  and  it  was  put  in  operation  January  1, 
1900.  Excluding  matters  pertaining  to  land  tenure  (which  are 
left  to  be  regulated  by  the  states),  the  Code  deals  not  only  with 
all  of  the  usual  subjects  of  civil  law.  but  also  with  subjects  arising 
from  the  contact  of  private  law  and  public  law.1 

The  Courts.  —  These  and  other  unifying  measures  brought  it 
about  that  throughout  the  Empire  justice  was  administered  in 
tribunals  whose  officials  were  appointed  by  the  local  governments, 
and  which  rendered  decisions  in  their  name,  but  whose  organiza- 
tion, powers,  and  rules  of  procedure  were  regulated  minutely 
by  federal  law;  and  the  system  has  undergone  no  important 
change  since  the  proclamation  of  the  republic  in  1918.  The 
hierarchy  of  tribunals  provided  for  in  the  Law  oi  Judicial  Organi- 
zation comprises  courts  of  four  grades.  At  the  bottom  are  the 
A  mtsgcrichtc,  of  which  there  are  approximately  two  thousand  in 
the  country.  These  are  courts  of  first  instance,  consisting  ordi- 
narily of  but  a  single  judge.  In  civil  cases  their  jurisdiction  ex- 
tends to  the  sum  of  six  hundred  marks;  in  criminal,  to  matters 
involving  a  fine  of  not  more  than  six  hundred  marks  or  imprison- 
ment of  not  over  three  months.  In  criminal  cases  the  judge  sits 
with  two  Schoffcn,  or  jurors,  selected  by  lot  from  the  jury  lists. 
Besides  litigious  business,  the  A  mtsgcrkh'lc  have  charge  of  the  regis- 
tration of  land  titles,  wills,  guardianship,  and  other  local  interests. 

Next  above  the  Amtsgcrirhtc  are  the  district  courts,  or  Land- 
gcrichtc  (173  in  1914).  each  composed  of  a  president  and  a  variable 
number  of  asso<  iate  judges.  Each  Landgericht  is  divided  into  a 
civil  and  a  criminal  chamber.     There  may,  indeed,  be  other  cham- 

1  For  a  brief  account  of  tin  development  of  German  law  see  Kriiger,  Government 
and  Politics  of  the  German  Empire,  183  mi.     Thebesl  treatise  on  the  Civil  Code  is 

E.  J.  Schuster,  Principles  of  the  German  Civil  Law  (Oxford,  1007).     C.  II.  Wang 
[ed.],  The  German  Civil  Code  (London,  too:   ,  is  a  s<  holarly  translation  "f  tl 
into  English.     An  excellent  critical   study  and   bibliography    is  I     M.  Borchard, 
Guide  in  the  Law  and  Legal  Literature  of  Germany  i\\a>hington,  1912). 


THE   IMPERIAL   GERMAN   GOVERNMENT  653 

bers,  as  for  example  a  Kammer  fur  Handclssachen,  or  chamber  for 
commercial  cases.  The  president  presides  over  a  full  bench  ; 
a  director  over  each  chamber.  The  Landgerichl  exercises  a  re- 
visory jurisdiction  over  judgments  of  the  Amtsgericht,  and  pos- 
sesses a  more  extended  original  jurisdiction  in  both  civil  and 
criminal  matters.  The  criminal  chamber,  consisting  of  five 
judges  (of  whom  four  are  necessary  to  convict),  is  competent, 
for  example,  to  try  cases  of  felony  punishable  with  imprisonment 
for  a  term  not  exceeding  five  years.  For  the  trial  of  many  sorts 
of  criminal  cases  there  are  special  Schwurgerichte,  or  jury  courts, 
which  sit  under  the  presidency  of  three  judges  of  the  Landgericht. 
A  jury  consists  of  twelve  members,  of  whom  eight  are  necessary 
to  convict.  Still  above  the  Landgerichte  are  the  Oberlandes- 
gerichte,  of  which  in  1914  there  were  twenty-nine,  each  consisting 
of  seven  judges.  The  Oberlandesgerichte  are  largely  courts  of 
apfpellate  jurisdiction.  Each  is  divided  into  a  civil  and  a  criminal 
senate.  There  is  a  president  of  the  full  court  and  a  similar 
official  for  each  senate. 

At  the  apex  of  the  system  stands  the  Reichsgericht  (created  by 
law  of  October  1,  1879),  which,  apart  from  certain  administra- 
tive, military,  and  consular  courts,  is  the  only  German  tribunal 
of  a  strictly  national  character.1  It  exercises  original  jurisdiction 
in  treason  cases  and  hears  appeals  from  the  consular  courts  and 
from  the  state  courts  on  questions  of  national  law.  Its  members, 
ninety-two  in  number,  were  formerly  appointed  by  the  Emperor 
for  life,  on  nomination  of  the  Bundesrath,  and  they  are  organized 
in  six  civil  and  four  criminal  senates.  Sittings  are  held  at  Leip- 
zig, in  Saxony. 

All  judges  in  the  courts  of  the  states  are  appointed  by  the 
authorities  of  the  respective  states.  The  national  law  prescribes 
minimum  qualifications  based  on  professional  study  and  experi- 
ence, the  state  being  left  free  to  impose  any  additional  qualifica- 
tions that  it  may  desire.  All  judges  are  appointed  for  life,  and 
all  receive  salaries  which  may  not  be  reduced  during  their  ten- 
ure ;  and  there  are  important  guarantees  against  arbitrary  trans- 
fer from  one  position  to  another,  as  well  as  other  practices  that 
might  diminish  the  judge's  impartiality  and  independence.2 

1  The  republican  constitution  of  1919  says  (Art.  108)  :  "In  accordance  with  a 
national  law  a  Supreme  Judicial  Court  will  be  established  for  the  German  Com- 
monwealth."    See  p.  731. 

2  On  the  German  judicial  system  see  Kriiger,  Government  and  Politics  of  the  Ger- 
man Empire,  191-204 ;  Howard,  German  Empire,  Chap,  ix ;  Laband,  Das  Staatsrecht 
des  dentschen  Reiches ,  §§  83-94;  I-  W.  Garner,  "The  German  Judiciary,"  in  Polit. 
Sci.  Quar.,  Sept.,  1902,  and  Sept.,  1903  ;  J.  Hirschfield,  "German  Courts  at  Work," 
in  Jour.  Soc.  Comp.  Legis.,  New  Series,  No.  xxv. 


CHAPTER  XXXVI 

THE    PRUSSIAN    GOVERNMENT   BEFORE   THE   GREAT   WAR 

Preponderance  of  Prussia  in  the  Empire.  —  Germany  on  the 
eve  of  the  Great  War  was  a  federal  empire  composed  of  twenty- 
five  slates,  besides  an  Imperial  territory  which  had  certain 
attributes  of  statehood,  i.e.,  Alsace-Lorraine.  Three  of  these 
states  —  the  old   free  cities  of  Bremen,  Hamburg,   and  Liibeck 

-wen-  aristocratic  republics;  all  the  others  were  monarchies. 
The  latter  included  the  four  kingdoms  of  Prussia,  Bavaria,  Sax- 
ony, and  Wurttemberg;  the  six  grand-duchies  of  Baden,  Hesse, 
Mecklenburg-Schwerin,  Mecklenburg-Strelitz,  Oldenburg,  and 
Saxe-Weimar;  the  five  duchies  of  Anhalt.  Brunswick.  Saxe- 
Altenburg,  Saxe-Coburg-Gotha,  and  Saxe-Meiningen ;  and  the 
seven  principalities  of  Lippe,  Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt,  Schwarz- 
burg-Sonderhausen,  Schaumburg-Lippe,  Reuss  Alterer  Linie, 
Reuss  Jungerer  Linie,  and  Waldeck-Pyrmont.1 

Easily  the  most  striking  feature  of  the  Empire's  political 
organization  and  life  was  the  dominance  exercised  by  one  of  the 
states,  Prussia,  over  all  the  others,  and  therefore  over  the  affairs 
of  the  Empire  itself.  This  dominance  flowed  from  a  variety  of 
circumstances.  First,  there  was  the  historical  fact  that  Prussia 
was  the  organizer  of  German  unity  and  the  creator  of  the  Empire. 
Second,  Prussia  physically  overshadowed  the  sister  states.  Her 
area  in  1914  was  134,616  square  miles ;   that  of  the  remainder  of 

1  The  best  survey  in  English  of  the  governments  of  the  German  stat<  -  is  Lowell, 
Governments  and  Parties,  I,  Chap.  vi.     Fuller  and  moi  is  (..  Combes  de 

Lestrade,  Les  monarchies  de  Vempire  allemand  (Paris,  1004).  The  most  elaborate 
treatment  of  the  subjeel  is  to  be  found  in  an  excellent  series  of  studies  edited  by  II. 
von  Marquardsen  and  M.  von  Seydel  under  the  title  Handbuch  des  Oeffentlichen 
Rechts  der  Gegenwart,  in  Monographien  (Freiburg  and  Tubingen,  1883-1009). 
A  new  monographs,  comprising  practically  a  revision  of  this  collection, 

was  in  course  of  publication  shortly  before  the  Greal  War  by  J.  C.  P..  Mohr  a1 
Tubingen.  The  texts  of  the  various  constitutions  are  printed  in  F.  Stoerk,  Hand- 
buch der  deutschen  Verfassungen  (Leipzig,  1884).  The  government  of  Alsace-Lor- 
raine under  the  German  regime  is  briefly  <li-^<  ril  x  •<  I  in  ELriiger,  Government  and  Polities 
of  the  German  Umpire,  Chap,  xv ;  Ogg,  Governments  of  Europe  (1st  ed.).  282-287, 
and  Howard,  German  Empire,  Chap.  x.  Excellent  full  accounts  are  C.  1).  Hazen, 
Alsace-Lorraine  under  German  Rule  (New  Vork,  191 7),  and  I!.  Cerf,  Alsace-Lorraine 
sinct  1870  (New  York,  1919). 

654 


PRUSSIAN   GOVERNMENT  BEFORE    1914  655 

the  Empire  was  74,164  square  miles.  Her  population  in  191 1  was 
40,163,333  ;  that  of  the  remainder  of  the  Empire  was  24,740,090. 
Third,  Prussia  enjoyed,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  peculiar  political 
rights  under  the  Imperial  constitution.  Her  king  was  ipso 
facto  Emperor ;  the  chairman  of  every  standing  committee  in  the 
Bundesrath,  except  that  on  foreign  affairs,  was  a  Prussian;  all 
changes  in  the  army,  the  navy,  or  the  system  of  taxation  must 
have  Prussia's  assent;  her  seventeen  votes  in  the  Bundesrath 
were  sufficient  to  defeat  any  constitutional  amendment.  Fourth, 
on  the  basis  of  interstate  agreements,  Prussia  had  substantial 
control  of  the  armed  forces  of  twenty-one  of  the  states,  together 
with  an  undefined  power  of  inspection  over  the  others.  Finally, 
Prussia  had  in  the  Hohenzollern  dynasty  a  ruling  family  of  ex- 
ceptional energy  and  ambition,  and  the  Prussian  people  were 
somewhat  more  easily  led  along  paths  of  aggression  in  both 
German  and  international  politics  than  were  their  Bavarian 
or  Wurttemberger  neighbors. 

The  result  of  all  this  was  that  Prussia  rapidly  advanced  after 
1871  from  mere  leadership  to  almost  unlimited  control.  She 
became,  for  all  practical  purposes,  Germany.  As  a  recent 
writer  remarks,  "  The  Fatherland  was  not  formed  by  the  absorp- 
tion of  Prussia  into  Germany,  but  by  the  absorption  of  Germany 
into  Prussia;  the  part  swallowed  the  whole."  The  political 
condition  of  the  German  Empire  and  the  role  formerly  played  by 
Germany  in  world  affairs  cannot,  therefore,  be  understood  with- 
out s6me  knowledge  of  Prussian  governmental  organization, 
methods,  and  spirit ;  just  as  the  future  political  development  of 
the  German-speaking  portions  of  Europe  will  be  comprehensible 
only  when  viewed  in  the  light  of  Prussian  events,  and  especially 
the  trend  of  political  opinion  among  the  Prussian  people.1 

The  Constitution.  —  The  written  constitution  under  which 
the  government  of  Prussia  was  formerly  carried  on  was  a  product 
of  the  revolutionary  movements  of  1848.2  It  first  took  shape  as 
a  rescript  promulgated  December  5,  1848,  by  Frederick  William 
IV,  with  a  view  to  averting  scenes  of  violence  in  Berlin  such  as 
the  year  had  witnessed  in  Paris,  Vienna,  and  other  capitals. 
The  king  had  promised  not  only  that  a  constitution  should 
at  last  be  given  the  long-misgoverned  country,  but  that 
the  instrument  should  be  "  agreed  upon  with  an  assembly  of 

1  Prussia  was  proclaimed  a  republic  on  November  13,  1918.  A  Constituent 
National  Assembly  of  401  members,  chosen  by  universal,  equal,  and  direct  suffrage 
of  men  and  women,  met  on  March  14,  1919. 

2  Schapiro,  Modem  and  Contemporary  European  History,  280. 


656  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

the  nation's  representatives  freely  chosen  and  invested  with 
full  powers."  This  pledge,  hastily  given  at  a  time  when  revo- 
lution seemed  imminent,  proved  embarrassing  when  the  danger 
had  somewhat  subsided.  But  crafty  ministers  suggested  a  way 
out  of  the  difficulty:  the  king  mighl  draw  up  a  constitution 
to  his  taste,  promulgate  it,  put  it  into  operation,  and  allow  the 
first  Landtag  elected  under  it  merely  to  agree,  if  it  could,  upon  a 
legislative  revision.  This  is  the  plan  that  was  followed.  The 
constitution  was  proclaimed,  elections  were  held,  and  early  in 
1849  the  chambers  took  up  the  problem  of  revision.  The  result 
was  disagreement  and,  in  the  vw\,  the  dissolution  of  the  lower 
house.  Along  with  the  original  instrument,  an  electoral  law  had 
been  issued  introducing  voting  by  secrel  ballot  and  conferring 
equal  suffrage  upon  all  male  citizens.  But  the  king  now  recalled 
this  law  and  substituted  for  it  another  which  not  only  abolished 
voting  by  ballot  but  made  elections  indirect,  and,  worse  still, 
divided  the  voters  into  three  classes  whose  electoral  power  was 
to  be  determined  entirely  by  property  qualifications  or  by  official 
and  professional  status.  In  other  words,  he  introduced  the  pe- 
culiar and  grossly  undemocratic  three-class  system  which  was 
already  in  use  in  some  Prussian  municipalities,  and  which  sur- 
vived, in  both  national  and  city  elections,  to  the  close  of  the 
Great  War. 

When  elections  were  held,  in  the  summer  of  1849,  in  accord- 
ance with  this  system,  the  democrats  refused  to  participate. 
The  upshot  was  that  the  new  chambers,  convened  August  7, 
1849,  proved  tractable  enough,  and  the  text  of  the  constitution, 
after  being  discussed  and  revised  article  by  article,  was  finally 
given  formal  approval.  On  the  last  day  of  January,  1850,  the 
instrument  was  duly  proclaimed  at  Charlottenburg.  During 
the  following  decade,  Austria,  Russia,  and  other  reactionary 
powers  sought  to  influence  the  king  to  repudiate  his  concessions. 
He  refused,  however,  to  do  so ;  and,  with  certain  modifications, 
the  constitution  of  1850  remained  the  fundamental  law  of  the 
Prussian  kingdom  until  after  the  Great  War.1 

In  form,  the  instrument  was  modeled  upon  the  Belgian  constitu- 

1  On  the  rise  of  constitutionalism  in  I'm  sia  see  (in  addition  to  work-  mentioned 
on  p.  654)  I'.  Matter,  "La  I'mssr  it  la  revolution  de  1848,"  in  Rev.  Hist.,  Sept.- 
i ),  t  ,  [902;  1'.  Devinat,  "Le  tnouvemenl  constitutionnel  en  Prusse  de  1S40  a 
1847,"  ibid.,  Sept.  Oct.  and  Nov.-Dec,  1911;  Klaczko,  "L'agitation  allemande  el 
la  Prusse,"  in  Rev.  des  Deux  Monies,  Do.,  [862,  and  Jan.  [863;  C.  Bornnak, 
Preussische  Stunts-  and  Rechtsgeschichte  (Berlin,  190..;';  H.  von  Petersdorff, 
Kdnig  Friedrich  Wilhelm  IV  (Stuttgart,  iqoo);  and  H.  G.  Prutz,  Preusstsche 
Geschickte,  4  vols,  to  1888  (Stuttgart,  1000-02).  For  an  extensive  bibliography  see 
Cambridge  Modem  History,  XI,  893-898. 


PRUSSIAN  GOVERNMENT  BEFORE   1914  657 

tion  of  1830.  Provisions  concerning  the  position  of  the  crown, 
the  powers  of  the  chambers,  and  the  functions  of  the  ministers 
were  reproduced  almost  literally  from  the  older  document. 
None  the  less,  the  two  rest  upon  widely  differing  bases.  The 
Belgian  fundamental  law  begins  with  the  assertion  that  "  all 
powers  emanate  from  the  nation."  That  of  Prussia  voiced  no 
such  sentiment,  and  the  governmental  system  for  which  it  pro- 
vided had  as  its  corner-stone  the  thoroughgoing  supremacy  of 
the  crown.  The  liberals  of  the  mid-century  period  were  by  no 
means  satisfied  with  it ;  and,  in  the  closing  months  of  the  revolu- 
tionizing Great  War  it  still  stood  out  among  the  great  constitu- 
tional documents  of  the  world  so  conspicuous  by  reason  of  its 
disregard  of  fundamental  democratic  principles  as  completely 
to  justify  both  the  attacks  made  upon  it  by  reformers  in  Prussia 
and  the  demand  of  an  outraged  world,  after  1914,  that  it  be  brought 
into  line  with  modern  political  development.  It  provided  for 
the  responsibility  of  ministers,  without  establishing  means  by 
which  that  responsibility  could  be  enforced  ;  the  most  antiquated 
and  undemocratic  electoral  system  in  Europe  was  grounded  upon 
it.  And,  as  is  pointed  out  by  Lowell,  even  where,  on  paper,  it 
appeared  to  be  liberal,  it  was  much  less  so  than  its  text  would 
lead  one  to  suppose.1  It  contained,  for  example,  a  bill  of  rights, 
which  alone  comprised  no  fewer  than  forty  of  the  one  hundred 
and  eleven  permanent  articles  of  the  instrument.  In  this  sec- 
tion it  guaranteed  the  personal  liberty  of  the  subject,  the  security 
of  property,  the  inviolability  of  personal  correspondence,  im- 
munity from  domiciliary  visitation,  freedom  of  the  press,  tolera- 
tion of  religious  sects,  liberty  of  migration,  and  the  right  of  as- 
sociation and  public  meeting.  But  there  was  an  almost  total 
lack  of  machinery  for  giving  effect  to  the  provisions.  Guarantees 
of  what  would  seem  the  most  fundamental  rights,  as  those  of 
public  assemblage  and  of  liberty  of  teaching,  were  reduced  in 
practice  to  empty  phrases. 

The  process  of  constitutional  amendment  was  easy.  With 
the  approval  of  the  king,  an  amendment  could  at  any  time  be 
adopted  by  a  simple  majority  of  the  two  legislative  chambers, 
with  only  the  special  requirement  that  an  amendment,  unlike 
a  statute,  must  be  voted  upon  twice,  with  an  interval  of  three 
weeks  between  the  two  votes.  During  the  first  ten  years  of  its 
existence  the  constitution  was  amended  not  fewer  than  ten  times. 
Of  later  amendments  there  were  six,  but  none  of  more  recent 
date  than  1888.     The  Prussian  system  of  amendment  by  simple 

1  Governments  and  Parties  in  Continental  Europe,  I,  286. 


GOVERNMENTS  01     EUROPE 

Legislative    |  was    incorporated,    in    [867,  in    the   funda- 

mental  law  of  the  North  German  Confederation  <x>  »]>t  that  in 
the  Bundesrath  a  two-thirds  vote  was  required);  and  in  1871  it 
was  perpetuated,  in  principle,  although  not  in  detail,  in  the 
constitution  of  the  Empire.1 

The  King  and  the  Ministers.  Flu-  crown  was  hereditary  in 
the  male  line  of  the  house  of  Hohenzollern,  following  the  principle 
primogeniture.  Certain  sections  of  the  constitution  were 
devoted  to  an  enumeration  of  the  royal  power-,'1  hut  it  was  never 
considered  that  the  king  was  restricted  to  tin-  powers  there  men- 
tioned, and  his  sum  total  of  authority  was  exceeded  by  that  of 
no  other  European  monarch.  He  was  absolute  commander  of 
the  army  ;  he  was  head  of  the  Chu:vh  ;  all  appointments  to  offices 
of  state  were  made  by  him  immediately  or  under  his  authority; 
the  upper  legislative  chamber  was  recruited  almost  wholly  by 
royal  nomination;  and  all  measures,  before  they  became  law, 
required  the  kind's  assent,  although  his  control  of  the  upper 
chamber  was  such  that  no  measure  of  which  he  disapproved 
was  ever  enacted  by  that  body,  so  that  there  was  never  an  occasion 
for  the  exercise  of  the  formal  veto.  In  the  words  of  a  leading 
German  jurist,  the  king  possessed  "the  whole  and  undivided 
power  of  the  state  in  all  of  its  plenitude.  It  would,  therefore,  be 
contrary  to  the  nature  of  the  monarchical  constitutional  law  of 
Germany  to  enumerate  all  individual  powers  of  the  king.  .  .  . 
His  sovereign  right  embraces,  on  the  contrary,  all  branches  of 
the  government.  Everything  which  is  decided  or  carried  out 
in  the  state  takes  place  in  the  name  of  the  king.  He  is  the 
personified  power  of  the  state."3  Except  in  so  far  as  the  authority 
of  the  sovereign  was  expressly  limited  or  regulated  by  the  con- 
stitution, it  was  absolute. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  German  Emperor,  as  such, 

1  There  is  an  annotated  English  version  of  the  Prussian  constitution,  edited  by 
J.  H.  Robinson,  in  the  .1;;;?.  of  Am.  Acad,  of  Polit.  andSoc.  Set.,  Supplement,  Sept., 
1894.  The  original  text  will  be  found  in  F.  Stoerk,  Handbuch  der  deutschen  \  er- 
fat  eipzag,   1884),  44-63;    also,  with  elaborate  note-,  in  A.   Arndt,  Die 

■kunde  fur  den  preussischen  Stoat  nebst  Ergatt3un  I  ;  fiihrutigs- 

Gcscizrn,  mil  Einleitung,  Kommentar  und  Sat  hr  '      :  I  be  principal 

treatises  on  the  lv  astitutional  system  are  !!.  Schulze,  Das  preussisches 

atsrecht,  auf  Grundla  \tschen  Staatsrechtes   (1  •   / 1 ' ;    ibid., 

Das  Stoat  KSnigreichs  Preussen,  in  Marquardsen's  Handbuch  (Freiburg, 

1884);  L.  von  Ronne,  Dot  Stoatsrecht  der  preussischen  Monara  Leipzig,  1881- 
84);   and  H.  d  Handbuch  der  Verfassung  und  Verwallung  in  Preussen  und 

dem  deutschen  Reichc  (nth  ed.,  Berlin.  1896).  A  good  brief  account  is  A.  Lebon, 
Etudes  sur  I'AUemagne  politique,  ("hap.  iv. 

-  Arts.  45-52.     Robinson,  Constitution  of  the  Kingdom  of  Prussia,  36-37. 

3  Schulze,  Preussisches  Stoatsrecht,  I,  158. 


PRUSSIAN   GOVERNMENT  BEFORE   1914  659 

had  no  "  civil  list."  He  had  no  need  of  one,  for  the  reason 
that  in  the  capacity  of  king  of  Prussia  he  had  personal  revenues 
and  allowances  exceeding  those  of  practically  all  other  European 
monarchs.  After  the  increase  provided  for  by  law  of  February 
20,  1889,  the  Krondolations  Rente,  as  it  appeared  in  the  annual 
Prussian  budget,  aggregated  seventeen  million  marks ;  in  ad- 
dition the  king  enjoyed  the  revenues  from  a  vast  amount  of 
private  property,  comprising  castles,  forests,  and  estates  in 
various  parts  of  the  realm.  There  were  also  certain  special 
funds  whose  income  was  available  for  the  needs  of  the  royal 
family. 

The  organization  of  the  executive  —  the  creation  of  ministerial 
portfolios,  the  appointment  of  ministers,  and  the  determination 
of  departmental  functions  —  rested  entirely  with  the  king, 
save,  of  course,  for  the  necessity  of  procuring  from  the  Landtag, 
or  Parliament,  the  requisite  appropriations.  Beginning  in  the 
early  nineteenth  century  with  five,  the  number  of  ministries 
was  gradually  increased  until  after  1878  there  were  nine,  as  fol- 
lows :  foreign  affairs ;  interior ;  ecclesiastical,  educational, 
and  sanitary  affairs ;  commerce  and  industry ;  finance ;  war ; 
justice ;  public  works ;  and  agriculture,  public  domains,  and 
forests.1  Each  ministry  rested  upon  an  essentially  independent 
basis,  and  there  was  little  attempt  to  reduce  the  group  to  the 
uniformity  or  symmetry  of  organization  that  characterizes  the 
ministries  of  France,  Italy,  and  other  continental  monarchies. 
Departmental  heads,  as  well  as  subordinates,  were  appointed 
solely  with  reference  to  their  administrative  capacity,  not,  as  in 
parliamentary  governments,  in  consideration  of  their  politics 
or  of  their  status  in  the  existing  political  situation.  They  need 
not  be,  and  usually  were  not,  members  of  either  of  the  legislative 
chambers.  For  it  must  be  observed  that  the  ministers  were 
responsible  only  to  the  sovereign,  which  means  that  the  parlia- 
mentary system,  in  the  proper  sense,  did  not  exist.  The  constitu- 
tion, it  is  true,  prescribed  that  every  act  of  the  king  should  be 
countersigned  by  a  minister,  who  thereby  assumed  responsibility 
for  it.  But  there  was  no  machinery  by  which  this  nominal 
responsibility  could  be  made,  in  practice,  to  mean  anything. 
Ministers  did  not  retire  by  reason  of  an  adverse  vote  in  the  Land- 
tag ;  and,  although  upon  vote  of  either  legislative  chamber,  they 
could  be  prosecuted  for  treason,  bribery,  or  violation  of  the  con- 
stitution, no  penalties  were  prescribed  in  the  event  of  convic- 

1  On  the  functions  of  the  various  ministries  see  Dupriez,  Les  minis tres,  I,  448- 
462, 


66o  GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

tion;  so  that  the  provision  was  of  no  practical  effect.1  Every 
minister  had  the  righl  to  appear  on  the  floor  of  either  chamber, 
and  to  be  heard  at  any  time  when  no  member  of  the  house  was 
a<  tually  speaking.  In  the  exercise  of  this  privilege  the  minister 
was  the  immediate  spokesman  of  the  <  town,  a  fa<  t  which  was  apl 
to  be  apparent  from  the  tenor  of  his  utterant  i 

The  Landtag:  House  of  Lords.  Legislative  authority  was 
shared  by  the  king  with  a  national  assembly,  the-  Landtag. 
composed  of  two  chambers,  of  which  the  upper  was  known  as  the 
Herrenhaus,  or  House  of  Lords,  and  the  lower  as  the  Abgeordne- 
tenhaus,  or  House  of  Representatives.  Under  the  original  pro- 
visions of  the  constitution,  the  House  of  Lords  was  composed 
of  (i)  adult  princes  of  the  royal  family;  (2)  heads  of  Prussian 
houses  derived  directly  from  the  earlier  Empire;  (3)  heads  of 
families  designated  by  royal  ordinance,  with  regard  for  rights 
of  primogeniture  and  lineal  descent ;  (4)  go  members  chosen  by 
the  principal  taxpayers  of  the  kingdom;  and  (5)  30  members 
elected  by  the  municipal  councils  of  the  larger  towns.  Under  the 
law  of  May  7,  1853,  this  arrangement  was,  however,  superseded 
by  another  which  practically  eliminated  the  elective  elements. 
Thenceforth  the  body  was  made  up  as  follows :  (1)  princes  of  the 
royal  family  who  were  of  age ;  (2)  scions  of  the  Hohenzollern- 
Hechingen,  Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen,  and  sixteen  other  families 
that  once  ruled  within  the  present  bounds  of  Prussia  ;  (3)  heads 
of  the  territorial  nobility  created  by  the  king,  and  numbering 
some  fifty  members;  (4)  a  number  of  life  peers,  chosen  by  the 
king  from  among  wealthy  landowners,  great  manufacturers, 
and  men  of  renown ;  (5)  eight  titled  noblemen  appointed  by  the 
king  on  the  nomination  of  the  resident  landowners  of  the  eight 
older  provinces  of  the  kingdom;  (6)  representatives  of  the  uni- 
versities, of  religious  bodies,  and  of  towns  of  over  50,000  in- 
habitants, nominated  by  these  various  organizations  respectively, 
but  finally  appointed  by  the  king;  and  (7)  an  indefinite  number 
of  members,  chosen  by  the  king  for  life  on  any  ground  whatso- 
ever, and  under  no  restriction  except  that  peers  must  have  at- 
tained the  age  of  thirty  years. 

The  composition  of  the  chamber  was  thus  extremely  complex. 

1  Art.  61.  Robinson,  Constitution  of  the  Kingdom  of  Prussia.  40.  In  the  words  of 
a  German  juri  1 .  i  he  anomaly  continued  to  exist  in  Prussia  of  "ministerial  responsi- 
bility solemnly  enunciated  in  the  constitution,  the  charai  ter  of  the  responsibility, 
the  accuser  and  the  court  spet  ified,  and  at  the  same  time  a  complete  lack  of  any 
legal  means  by  which  the  r<  pre  entativesof  the  people  can  protect  even  the  constitu- 
tion itself  against  the  mosl  flagrant  violations  and  the  most  dangerous  attacks." 
Schulze,  Preussisclics  Staatsrecht,  II,  694.     Cf.  Dupriez,  Les  ministres,  I,  387-427. 


PRUSSIAN   GOVERNMENT  BEFORE   1914  661 

There  were  members  ex-qfftcio,  members  by  royal  appointment, 
members  by  hereditary  right.  But  the  appointing  power  of 
the  crown  was  so  extensive  that  the  body  was  at  all  times  prac- 
tically the  creature  of  royalty.  Its  membership  was  recruited 
almost  exclusively  from  the  stanchly  conservative  landowning 
aristocracy,  so  that  in  attitude  and  policy  it  was  apt  to  be  in  no 
degree  representative  of  the  mass  of  the  nation,  at  least  of  the 
industrial  classes.  As  a  rule,  although  not  invariably,  it  was 
ready  to  support  the  measures  of  the  crown  unhesitatingly. 
In  any  event,  through  exercise  of  the  unrestricted  power  of  creat- 
ing peers,  the  crown  was  at  all  times  in  a  position  to  control  its 
acts.  The  number  of  members  varied,  but  was  ordinarily  about 
300. 

The  Landtag  :  House  of  Representatives  and  Electoral  System. 
■ —  The  A  bgeordnetenhaus,  or  House  of  Representatives,  consisted 
of  443  members  —  362  for  the  old  kingdom,  80  added  in  1867 
to  represent  the  provinces  then  acquired,  and  one  added  in  1876 
to  represent  Lauenburg.  Representatives  were  elected  for  a  five- 
year  term,  and  every  Prussian  was  eligible  who  had  completed  his 
thirtieth  year,  who  had  paid  national  taxes  for  as  much  as  three 
years,  and  whose  civil  rights  had  not  been  impaired  by  judicial 
sentence.  At  first  glance,  the  suffrage  seemed  reasonably  liberal. 
Every  male  citizen  twenty-five  years  of  age  and  upwards  on  the 
voters'  list  of  his  Gemeinde,  or  commune,  was  entitled  to  vote  at 
parliamentary  elections.  More  closely  viewed,  however,  the 
system  was  liberal  only  in  that  few  males  beyond  the  age  of 
twenty-five  were  without  the  suffrage.  In  its  actual  workings 
it  was  the  most  undemocratic  in  Europe.  A  brief  description 
will  make  its  shortcomings  apparent. 

Representatives  were  chosen  in  electoral  districts,  each  of  which 
returned  from  one  to  three  members  —  as  a  rule,  two.  But 
there  was  no  general  redistribution  of  seats  after  i860  (although 
some  changes  were  made  in  1906),  and  in  many  districts,  espe- 
cially in  the  urban  centers  whose  growth  had  fallen  largely  within 
the  past  fifty  years,  the  quota  of  representatives  was  grossly 
disproportioned  to  population.  Until  1906,  the  entire  city  of 
Berlin  returned  only  nine  members,  and  its  quota  after  that  date 
was  only  twelve.  The  situation  in  this  respect  was  fully  as  bad 
as  in  the  Reichstag.  In  the  next  place,  the  enfranchised  inhabit- 
ants of  the  district  did  not  vote  for  a  representative  directly, 
nor  did  their  votes  have  equal  weight.  The  manner  of  election 
was,  in  brief,  this :  (1)  each  circle,  or  district,  was  divided  into 
a  number  of  Urwahlbezirke,  or  sub-districts  ;   (2)  in  each  Urwahl- 


662  G0VERNM1  I     El  ROPE 

brJrk  one  Wahlman,  or  ele«  tor,  was  allotted  to  every  250  inhabit 
ants ;  (3)  for  the  choosing  of  these  Wahlrn&nnet  the  voters  of  the 
sub-district  were  divided  into  three  classes,  arranged  in  such  a 
fashion  that  the  first  class  would  be  composed  of  the  payers  of 
taxes,  beginning  with  the  Largest  contributors,  who  col- 
lectively paid  one  third  of  the  tax  quota  of  the  sub-district,  the 
second  class  would  include  the  payers  next  in  importance  who 
as  a  group  paid  the  second  third,  and  the  last  class  would  comprise 
the   remainder;     (4)    each    of    thesi  »se,    by    absolute 

majority,  one  third  of  the  electors  to  which  th(  Ufwahlbegirk 
was  entitled  ;  finally  (5)  all  the  electors  thus  chosen  In  the  various 
ahlbezirke  of  the  district  came  together  as  an  electoral  college 
and  chose,  by  absolute  majority,  a  representative  to  sit  in  the 
Abgeordnctcnliaus  at  Berlin.'  V 

This  unique  system  was  devised  as  a  compromise  between 
thoroughgoing  democracy  based  on  universal  suffrage  and  a 
government  exclusively  by  the  landholding  aristocracy.  The 
three-class  arrangement  originated  in  the  Rhine  province,  where 
the  local  government  code  of  1845  Put  ft  in  operation  in  elections 
in  the  municipalities.  In  the  constitution  of  1850  it  was  adopted 
for  use  in  the  national  election-,  and  in  subsequent  years  it  was 
extended  to  municipal  elections  in  practically  all  parts  of  the  king- 
dom, so  that  it  came  to  be  a  characteristic  and  almost  universal 
Prussian  institution.  It  need  hardly  be  pointed  out  that  the 
scheme  threw  the  bulk  of  political  power,  whether  in  municipality 
or  in  nation,  into  the  hands  of  the  people  of  wealth.  In  not 
fewer  than  2214  UrwaMbezirke,  some  years  ago,  a  third  of  the 
direct  taxes  was  paid  by  a  single  individual,  who  therefore  alone 
comprised  the  first  electoral  class;  and  in  1703  others  the  firsl 
class  consisted  of  but  two  persons.  In  most  cases  the  number 
of  the  least  considerable  taxpayers  who  in  the  aggregate  paid  the 
last  third  of  the  tax  quota  was  relatively  very  large.  Throughout 
the  kingdom  as  a  whole,  there  were,  in  [908,  203,000  voters  In 
the  first  class,  1.065,240  in  the  second,  and  6,324,079  in  the  third. 
The  first  class  represented  four  per  cent  of  the  population,  the 
second  class  fourteen  per  cent,  and  the  third  class  eighty-two 
per  cent.  The  operation  of  the  system,  combined  with  the  failure 
to  redistribute  sea.ts,  gave  an  enormous  advantage  to  the  conserva- 
tive and  agrarian  interests  and  almost  completely  deprived  the 
Socialists  and  other  popular  elements  of  representation.  At 
the  elections  of  1903  the  Socialists  attempted  for  the  fust  time  in 

1  In  the  event  that,  between  elections,  ;i  seat  fell  Vacant,  a  new  member  was 
chosen  by  this  same  body  of  W'ahltiiaiiucr  without  a  fresh  appeal  to  the  electorate. 


PRUSSIAN  GOVERNMENT   BEFORE   1914  663 

an  organized  way  to  win  seats  in  the  Landtag.  Under  the  system 
which  has  been  described,  a  total  of  324,157  Conservative  votes 
sufficed  to  elect  143  representatives,  but  314,149  Social  Demo- 
cratic votes  did  not  secure  the  return  of  a  single  member.  In  the 
Imperial  elections  of  the  same  year,  conducted  under  a  scheme 
of  equal  suffrage,  the  popular  party  sent  to  the  Reichstag  eighty 
members.  At  the  Prussian  elections  of  1908  a  Social  Democratic 
vote  which  formed  approximately  twenty-four  per  cent  of  the 
total  popular  vote  yielded  but  seven  members  in  a  total  of  443. 1 

The  Movement  for  Electoral  Reform.  —  For  more  than  a 
generation  prior  to  the  Great  War  there  was  ceaseless  agitation 
for  electoral  reform.  In  1883,  and  again  in  1886,  the  lower  cham- 
ber debated,  but  rejected,  a  project  for  the  substitution  of  the 
secret  ballot  for  the  existing  viva  voce  method  of  voting.  In  1883 
the  Social  Democratic  party  announced  the  purpose  of  its  mem- 
bers to  abstain  from  voting  until  the  inequalities  arising  from 
"  the  most  wretched  of  all  electoral  systems  "  should  have  been 
removed.  Gradually  a  program  of  reform  was  worked  out  to 
which  Socialists,  Liberals,  and  progressives  of  various  schools 
gave  adherence,  wholly  or  in  part,  comprising  four  principal 
demands:  (1)  direct  elections;  (2)  equal  weight  for  votes;  (3) 
secret  ballot,  and  (4)  redistribution  of  seats.  To  the  outbreak 
of  the  Great  War,  these  were  the  objects  chiefly  sought  by  the  re- 
form elements ;  and,  as  will  presently  be  pointed  out,  the  reform 
movement  during  the  war  gave  these  matters  great  prominence.2 

In  1906  a  bill  raising  the  number  of  representatives  from  433 
to  443  and  making  provision  for  a  slight  redistribution  of  seats  was 
carried,  but  a  Radical  amendment  providing  for  direct  and 
universal  suffrage  and  the  secret  ballot  was  vigorously  opposed 
by  the  government  and  failed  of  adoption.  In  January,  1908, 
the  country  was  stirred  by  Socialist  demonstrations  in  behalf 
of  equal  manhood  suffrage.  Prince  von  Biilow,  while  admitting 
that  the  existing  system  was  defective,  opposed  the  introduc- 
tion in  Prussia  of  the  electoral  arrangements  of  the  Empire,  alleg- 
ing that  it  would  not  be  compatible  with  the  interests  of  the  state, 

1  For  a  brief  exposition  of  the  practical  effects  of  the  system,  especially  on  political 
parties,  see  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  I,  305-308.  The  system  as  it  operated 
in  the  cities  is  described  in  Munro,  Government  of  European  Cities.  128-135,  and  in 
R.  C.  Brooks,  "The  Three-Class  System  in  Prussian  Cities,"  in  Municipal  Affairs, 
II,  396  ff.  Among  special  treatises  may  be  mentioned  H.  Nezard,  L' Evolution  du 
suffrage  nniversel  en  Prusse  et  dans  VEmpire  allemand  (Paris,  1905) ;  I.  Jastrow, 
Das  Drciklassensystem  (Berlin,  1894) ;  R.  von  Gneist,  Die  nationale  Rechtsidee  von 
den  Stdnden  und  das  preussische  Dreiklassensystem  (Berlin,  1904) ;  and  G.  Evert, 
Die  Dreiklassonoahl  in  den  preussischen  Stadt-  und  Landgemcindcn  (Berlin,  1901). 

2  See  p.  706. 


GO\  l-.KNMI  N  rS  01     M  ROP] 

and  contending  that  sound  reform  of  the  franchise  must  secure 
the  preponderance  of  the  middle  class,  and  therefore  must  aim 
at  the  establishment  ^\  an  equitable  gradation  in  the  weighl  of 
the  various  classes  of  votes.  It  was  added  thai  the  governmenl 
would  consider  whether  this  object  mighl  best  be  attained  by 
basing  the  Franchise  entirely  upon  the  amount  of  taxes  paid  by 
the  voter,  or  by  taking  into  account  age,  edu<  ational  attainments, 
or  other  qualifications.  When  the  Radicals  introduced  a 
resolution  declaring  i'  ir  equal  manhood  suffrage  the  Clericals 
and  the  Poles  supported  it,  but  the  Conservatives  and  the  Na- 
tional Liberals  of  all  shades  stood  by  the  government,  and  the 
resolution  was  overwhelmingly  rejected.  The  elections  of  June, 
1908,  at  which,  as  has  been  pointed  out.  seven  Social  Democratic 
members  were  returned,  demonstrated  that  even  under  existing 
electoral  arrangements  dissatisfaction  could  find  some  expression. 
The  National  Liberals  and  the  Free  Conservatives,  who  had 
been  outspoken  in  opposition  to  the  extension  of  the  suffrage, 
lost,  respectively,  twelve  and  four  seats.  When,  however,  the 
Radical  resolution  reappeared  it  was  again  thrown  out. 

Popular  demonstrations  in  Berlin  and  other  centers  convinced 
the  government  that  it  would  be  wise  to  relax  its  inflexible  atti- 
tude. In  a  speech  from  the  throne,  January  11,  1910,  the  king 
announced  the  early  appearance  of  a  measure  for  electoral  re- 
form, and  a  month  later  it  became  the  unwelcome  duty  of  the 
new  Chancellor,  von  Bethmann-Hollweg,  to  lay  the  government's 
project  before  the  chambers.  It  was  instantly  evident,  not  only 
that  the  proposal  had  been  prepared  under  bureaucratic  direction. 
but  that  the  real  purpose  of  the  government  was  to  carry  through 
the  Landtag  an  electoral  bill  designed  to  appease  the  reformers 
without  abandoning  the  essential  features  of  the  existing  system. 
The  project  provided,  in  brief:  (1)  that  the  tripartite  arrange 
ment  should  be  retained,  although  the  quota  of  taxes  admitting 
to  the  first  class  should  be  reduced  to  a  uniform  1  vel  of  five 
thousand  marks  (no  weight  being  given  to  payment  beyond  that 
amount),  and  voters  of  specified  degrees  of  education,  or  occupy- 
ing certain  official  positions,  or  Iraving  served  ;i  stipulated  number 
of  years  in  the  army  or  navy,  should  be  assigned  to  the  higher 
classes,  with  but  incidental  regard  to  their  tax  contributions 
(2)  that  viva  voce  voting  should  be  retained  ;  (3)  that  the  choice 
of  electors  should  be  by  districts  rather  than  1>\  Urwahlbezirke ; 
and  (4)  that  direct  voting  should  be  substituted  for  indirect. 
There  was  no  mention  of  redistribution,  and  the  secret  ballot 
was  withheld.     The  r  mi  al  of  classes  (\]<\  not  touch  the 


PRUSSIAN   GOVERNMENT   BEFORE   1914  665 

fundamental  difficulty  ;  indeed,  the  only  demand  of  the  reformers 
that  was  really  met  was  that  for  direct  elections.  In  his  speech 
in  defense  of  the  measure  the  Chancellor  frankly  admitted  that 
the  government  was  irrevocably  opposed  to  a  suffrage  system 
based  on  democratic  principles. 

The  scheme  was  ridiculed  by  the  liberal  elements.  In  protest 
against  the  nonchalance  with  which  the  door  had  been  shut  in 
their  faces,  the  working  classes  in  Berlin  and  elsewhere  entered 
upon  a  fresh  series  of  demonstrations  which  embarrassed  the 
government  for  several  weeks.  In  the  Landtag  the  Conserva- 
tive and  Free  Conservative  parties,  forming  the  government 
majority,  stood  solidly  for  the  bill,  in  the  conviction  that  if 
there  must  be  change  at  all  those  changes  which  the  bill  proposed 
would  be  less  objectionable  than  those  which  were  being  urged 
by  the  radicals.  The  Center  wavered,  while  the  National 
Liberals,  the  Poles,  the  Social  Democrats,  and  the  Progressive 
People's  party  stood  firmly  in  opposition.  On  February  13  the 
bill  was  referred  in  the  lower  house  to  a  committee,  which 
reported  it  so  amended  as  to  provide  for  the  secret  ballot,  but  not 
for  direct  elections.  On  March  16,  by  a  vote  of  283  to  168,  the 
measure  in  this  amended  form  was  passed  by  the  chamber,  all 
parties  except  the  Conservatives  and  the  Center  voting  against 
it.  On  April  29  the  bill  was  passed  in  the  upper  chamber,  by  a 
vote  of  140  to  94,  in  the  form  in  which  it  had  originally  been 
introduced.  All  efforts  on  the  part  of  the  government  to  bring 
the  lower  house  to  an  acceptance  of  the  original  measure  proved 
fruitless,  and  the  upshot  was  that  the  project  was  withdrawn. 

Reconstruction  of  the  antiquated  electoral  system,  both  na- 
tional and  municipal,  remained  at  the  outbreak  of  the  Great  War  a 
live  issue ;  but  agreement  upon  a  definite  project  of  reform  seemed 
remote.  The  problem  was  enormously  complicated  by  the  tradi- 
tions of  aristocratic,  landed  privilege  which  permeated  the  in- 
most parts  of  the  Prussian  political  system.  In  the  matter  of 
redistribution,  too,  a  fundamental  obstacle  lay  in  the  consideration 
that  such  a  step  on  the  part  of  Prussia  would  almost  of  necessity 
involve,  a  similar  one  on  the  part  of  the  Empire.  In  both  in- 
stances the  insuperable  objection,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
government,  arose  from  the  vast  accession  of  political  power 
that  would  accrue  from  such  a  reform  to  the  Socialists  and  to 
other  radical  parties.1 

1  P.  Matter,  "La  reforme  electorate  en  Prusse,"  in  Ann.  dcs  Sri.  Polit.,  Sept., 
1910;  C.  Brocard,  "La  reforme  electorate  en  Prusse  et  les  partis,"  in  Rev.  Polit. 
el  Pari.,  Feb.,  191 2. 


GOVERNMEN  rs  0]     El  ROPE 

Actual  Character  of  the  Landtag.  The  maximum  life  of  a 
Landtag  was  five  >  ears.  The  I  »wer  i  hamber  might,  however,  be 
dissolved  al  any  time  by  arbitrary  acl  of  the  crown,  and  there 
were  instances  of  the  dissolution  of  a  newly  elected  chamber 
on  account  of  its  objectionable  political  character  before  il 
had  been  convened  for  so  much  as  a  single  sitting.  Each  house 
el  >.\  ted  its  own  officers,  and  regulated  its  own  order  of  busi 
an  1  proceedings  were  normally  open  to  the  public.  At  the  open- 
ing of  a  session  the  House  of  Lords  was  divided  into  five  Abthei- 
lungcn,  or  sections,  and  the  House  of  Representatives  into  seven. 
In  the  lower  house  the  division  was  made  by  lot;  in  the  upper, 
by  the  president.  In  both  instances  it  was  made  once  for  an 
entire  session,  not  monthly  as  in  France,  or  bi-monthly  as  in  Italy. 
The  function  of  the  Abtheilungen  was  to  appoint  committee 
members,  and.  in  the  lower  house,  to  examine  election  returns 
with  a  view  to  final  validation  by  the  chamber  itself.  Each 
house  had  eight  standing  committees,  and  special  committees 
were  created  as  need  arose. 

The  Landtag  was,  of  course,  a  national  legislature.  The  rights 
of  independent  deliberation  Which  it  exercised,  however,  were  so 
scant  as  to  be  almost  negligible.  In  theory,  each  chamber  had 
full  power  to  initiate  legislation;  in  practice,  almost  all  bills 
were  introduced  by  the  government,  and  the  chambers  contented 
themselves  with  discussion  and  proposing  amendments.  It 
sometimes  happened  that,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Electoral  Reform 
Bill  of  ioio,  the  lower  house  so  emasculated  a  measure  as  to 
compel  the  government  to  withdraw  it.  But,  speaking  broadly, 
it  may  be  said  that  Prussian  legislation  was  projected  and  for- 
mulated by  the  crown  and  the  ministers  and  merely  ratified  by 
the  Landtag.1  There  was  always  a  question  as  to  whether  the 
stipulation  that  all  laws  required  the  assent  of  the  two  houses 
covered,  under  every  circumstance,  the  appropriation  of  money. 
In  practice,  appropriations  were  regularly  voted  in  the  chambers, 
and  in  fact  it  was  required  that  the  budget  ami  all  fiscal  measures 
should  be  presented  first  to  the  lower  house,  and  should  be  accepted 
or  rejected  as  a  whole  by  the  upper  one.  But.  during  the  years 
1863-67  the  government,  under  Bismarck's  leadership,  asserted 

'  "According  to  th<  '!"<  trine  almost,  if  not  quite,  unanimously  held  by  Clerman 
iuri-ts.  the  people  through  their  ele<  to  I  representatives  participate,  not  in  il 
tion  of  law,  but  in  the  determination  of  tin-  contents  of  a  proposition  which  is  to  lie 
submitted  to  the  sovereign  for  the  1  cer<  i  e  of  his  supreme  legislative  will.  And  not. 
until  that  will  has  been  approvingly  exercised  does  the  measure  become  legally 
executory   (,  ."     W.  W.  Willoughby,  Prussian  Political  Philosophy  (Xew 

York,  1918),  103. 


PRUSSIAN   GOVERNMENT  BEFORE   1914  667 

and  exercised  the  power  of  collecting  and  expending  the  revenues 
of  the  state  on  the  basis  of  standing  laws,  thus  entirely  suspending 
the  legislative  appropriating  power;  and  the  question  has  not 
been  settled  by  Prussian  jurists  as  to  whether  such  a  thing  might 
not  have  been  done  again.1 

On  the  side  of  administration,  also,  the  powers  of  the  Landtag 
were  merely  nominal.  Each  chamber  had  a  right  to  present 
memorials  to  the  king;  to  refer  to  the  ministers  documents 
addressed  to  it,  and  to  demand  explanations  concerning  com- 
plaints made  therein;  and  to  appoint  commissions  for  the  in- 
vestigation of  subjects  for  its  own  information.  The  right  of 
interpellation  was  expressly  recognized.  But,  as  has  been  pointed 
out,  the  ministers  were  not  responsible  to  the  legislative  chambers, 
and  neither  they  nor  the  king  himself  could  be  compelled  to  give 
heed,  unless  they  so  desired,  to  legislative  protests,  demands,  or 
censure.  Where  a  parliamentary  system  does  not  exist,  the 
influence  of  the  legislative  branch  upon  matters  of  administration 
is  likely  to  be  confined  to  the  simple  assertion  of  opinion. 

Local  Government :  Origins  and  Principles.  —  In  most  of 
their  essential  features,  the  machinery  of  local  administration 
and  the  connections  between  the  central  and  local  authorities  in 
Prussia  to-day  date  from  the  reforms  of  the  Stein-Hardenberg 
ministries  in  the  early  years  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Under 
the  memorable  Municipal  Edict  (Stadt-Ordmmg)  of  November  19, 
1808,  Stein  set  up  a  complete  municipal  system,  with  burgo- 
masters, executive  boards,  and  town  councils  (all  elective),  and 
swept  away  the  oligarchy  of  the  gilds,  broadened  the  franchise, 
and  conferred  almost  complete  independence  upon  the  towns, 
even  in  the  matter  of  taxation.  An  edict  of  1831  revived  the 
power  of  the  central  authorities  to  supervise  local  taxation  and 
introduced  a  number  of  other  changes;  but,  on  the  whole,  the 
municipal  system  of  the  present  day  is  based  upon  the  edict  of 
Stein.  More  immediately,  it  rests  upon  an  act  of  1853,  which 
originally  applied  only  to  the  six  eastern  provinces  of  the  kingdom, 
but  was  eventually  extended  to  the  others.  It  was  under  this 
last-mentioned  decree  that  the  three-class  system  in  local  elec- 
tions was  gradually  spread  over  the  country.2  Neither  Stein 
nor  Hardenberg  touched  the  rural  communes,  but  the  extension, 
during   the   Napoleonic   occupation,   of   the   French   communal 

1  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  I,  298.  The  great  constitutional  conflict  of 
this  period  in  Prussia  is  clearly  described  in  Dawson,  German  Empire,  I,  Chap.  iv. 

2  The  text  of  the  law  of  1853  is  printed  in  the  appendix  of  A.  W.  Jebens,  Die 
Stadtverordneten  (Berlin,  1905). 


668  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

system  into  all  the  Prussian  territories  wot  of  the  Elbe  prepared 
the  way  for  the  essentiall)  uniform  system  which  was  establish*  -I 
by  the  Westphalian  and  Rhineland  Edicts  <>!'  1.X41  and  [845. 
Edicts  of  1S07  and  1S1  1  abolished  the  aristocratic  basis  of  the 
ancient  circles  {Kreise),  and  after  [815  the  circle  as  a  unit  of 
local  government  uexl  above  the  commune  was  extended  to  all  the 
conquered  or  reconquered  territories.  The  r<  vival  of  the  old  pro- 
vincial organization  was  begun  also  in  [815,  v.  kingdom 
was  divided  into  ten  provinces;  and  in  the  same  year  twenty  is 
government  districts  (Regierungsbezirke)  wen-  established,  two 
or  three  in  each  province,  each  under  the  control  of  one  of  the 
government  boards  (Regierungeri)  whose  creation  was  begun 
in  1808.1 

Soon  after  the  founding  of  the  Empire,  Bismarck  turned  his 
attention  to  a  reorganization  of  local  government ;  and  while  his 
reforms  were  designed,  of  course,  only  for  Prussia,  they  were 
copied  to  such  an  extent  in  other  German  states  that  the  Empire 
was  brought  to  a  substantially  common  basis.  The  Chancellor 
was  no  believer  in  democracy.  But  he  thought  that,  with  a  view 
to  both  economy  and  stability,  the  local  administrative  authori- 
ties should  be  made  to  include  not  only  a  paid,  expert  bureaucracy, 
but  a  considerable  element  of  unpaid  lay  or  non-official  persons, 
drawn  principally  from  the  large  landowners  and  taxpayers. 
The  obstacles  to  be  overcome,  arising  from  public  indifference, 
the  opposition  of  the  existing  bureaucracy,  the  apprehensions  of 
the  conservatives,  and  sectional  differences  and  antipathies, 
were  enormous;  but  by  proceeding  slowly  and  in  a  conciliatory 
spirit  the  government  was  eventually  able  to  carry  out  its  plans. 
The  first  enactments,  for  the  circles  in  1872  and  for  the  provinces 
in  1875,  applied  only  to  those  provinces  which  had  formed  the  old 
monarchy,  but  during  the  next  ten  years  similar  measures  were 
extended  to  the  remainder  of  the  kingdom,  and,  finally,  after  the 
dismissal  of  Bismarck,  the  task  was  rounded  out  by  a  great  Land- 
gemeinde-Ordnung  issued  for  the  seven  eastern  provinces  in  1891. 
This  series  of  enactments  gave  the  administrative  methods  and 
machinery  of  the  kingdom  almost  precisely  the  character  they 
have  had  in  the  most  recent  years.2 

1  E.  Meier,  Die  Reform  der  Verwalkmgsorganisation  unter  Stein  und  Ilardcnberg 
(Leipzig,  1881). 

2  Throughout  these  reforms  English  local  institutions  were  closely  studied  and  to 
a  considerable  extent  copied.  In  a  number  of  scholarly  volumes  which  appeared 
between  1863  and  1872  the  genius  of  these  institutions  was  convincingly  expounded 
by  the  jurist  Rudolph  Gneist,  whose  thesis  was  that  the  failure  of  parliamentary 
government  in  Prussia  and  the  success  of  it  in  Great  Britain  was  to  be  attributed  to 


PRUSSIAN   GOVERNMENT  BEFORE   1914  669 

Although  the  system  is  still  one  of  the  most  complicated  in 
Europe,  it  is  infinitely  simpler  than  it  once  was,  and  the  bureau- 
cratic forces  in  it,  if  still  predominant,  have  been  brought  under 
restraint.  The  principles  underlying  it  have  been  summarized 
by  an  English  writer  as  follows  :  "  The  first  is  the  careful  distinc- 
tion drawn  between  those  internal  affairs  in  which  the  central 
government  is  thought  to  be  directly  concerned,  and  those 
which  are  held  to  be  primarily  of  only  local  interest.  The  former 
group  includes,  besides  the  army,  the  state  taxes  and  domains, 
ecclesiastical  affairs,  police  (in  the  wide  Prussian  meaning  of 
the  term),  and  the  supervision  of  local  authorities  ;  whilst  roads, 
poor  relief,  and  a  number  of  miscellaneous  matters  are  left  to 
the  localities.  These  two  groups  are  kept  carefully  separate, 
even  when  they  are  intrusted  to  the  same  authority.  Secondly, 
the  work  of  the  central  government  is  "  deconcentrated,"  that 
is,  the  country  is  divided  into  districts  (which  may  or  may  not 
be  coincident  with  the  areas  of  local  self-government),  in  each 
of  which  there  is  a  delegation  of  the  central  authority,  doing  its 
work,  and  thereby  lessening  the  pressure  upon  the  departmental 
offices  in  Berlin.  Something  like  this  deconcentration  is  found 
in  the  educational  organization  of  France,  and  also  in  the  office 
of  the  prefect,  but  it  is  far  more  elaborate,  and  the  machinery 
much  more  complex,  in  Prussia.  Thirdly,  the  comparative  in- 
dependence of  the  executive  from  the  deliberative  authority,  and 
the  predominance  of  the  officials,  which  characterize  the  central 
government  of  Prussia,  repeat  themselves  throughout  the  whole 
of  local  government.  And,  finally,  in  all  except  the  largest  of  the 
Prussian  areas  of  local  self-government,  the  executive  agents  of 
the  locality,  elected  by  it,  are  also  the  representatives  of  the  cen- 
tral government ;  as  such  they  are  members  of  the  bureaucracy 
and  controlled  by  it,  and  in  consequence  they  naturally  look  to 
the  center  for  guidance  and  direction  in  regard  to  local  affairs. 
Therefore,  whilst  it  would  be  inaccurate  to  say  that  local  self- 
government,  as  understood  in  England,  does  not  exist  in  Prussia, 
it  is  true  that  self-government  there  is  weak,  that  it  is  not  so  much 
the  exercise  of  the  will  of  the  locality  within  limits  prescribed  (for 
the  protection  of  the  whole  community)  by  the  central  power,  as 
the  exercise  of  the  will  of  the  latter  by  the  locality.  In  fact,  the 
bureaucracy  rules ;   and  it  is  fortunate  for  Prussia  that  hitherto 

the  dissimilarity  of  the  local  governments  of  the  two  countries.  These  writings 
supplied  Bismarck's  practical  proposals  with  a  useful  theoretic  basis.  The  most 
important  of  them  were  Gescliichte  dcs  Self-government  in  England  (i863-> ;  Veruealtung, 
Justiz,  Rechtsweg  (1867);  Die  prcussische  Krcis-Ordnung  (1871);  and  Der  Rcchts- 
staat  (1872). 


670  G0\  ERNMEN  1  -  01    1. 1  ROPE 

the  bureaucracy  has  remained  intelligent  and  respective  of  new 
ideas."1  At  the  same  time  it  is  to  be  observed  that,  while  the 
professional,  lifelong  holders  of  office  continue  to  preponderate 
as  in  no  other  important  country  of  western  Europe,  the  class  of 
non-professionals  is  large  and  increasing.  As  a  rule,  the  firsl 
class  is  salaried,  the  second  is  not;  the  non-professionals  being 
simply  citizens  who.  moved  by  considerations  of  a  civic  and  social 
nature,  give  their  services  without  prospect  of  pecuniary  reward. 
The  principle  of  the  system  is,  as  Ashley  characterizes  it,  that  of 
government  by  experts,  checked  by  lay  criticism  and  the  power 
of  the  purse,  and  effectively  controlled  by  the  central  authority   . 

Local  Government:  the  Province.  Aside  from  the  cities,  whii  h 
have  their  special  forms  of  government,  the  administrative  unit., 
of  Prussia,  in  the  ortler  of  their  magnitude,  are  :  ( 1 )  the  Provitts, 
or  province;  (2)  the  Regierungsbezirk, or  district ;  (.0  the  Kreis, 
or  circle:  (4)  the  Atntsbezirk,  or  court  jurisdiction;  and  (5) 
the  Gemeinde,  or  commune.  Of  these,  three  — the  first,  third, 
and  fifth  —  are  spheres  both  of  the  central  administration  and 
of  local  self-government  ;  two  the  second  and  fourth 
for  administrative  purposes  only.  Of  provinces  there  were,  to 
1919,  twelve:  East  Prussia,  West  Prussia,  Brandenburg,  Pom- 
crania,  Silesia,  Posen,  Westphalia,  Saxony.  Hanover,  the  Rhine 
Province,  Schleswig-Holstein,  and  Hesse-Nassau.  Unlike  the 
French  and  Italian  departments,  these  Prussian  provinces  were 
historical  areas,  of  widely  varying  extent  and,  in  some  instant  1  s, 
of  not  even  wholly  continuous  territory.  Thus  Hanover  was, 
geographically,  the  kingdom  once  united  with  the  crown  of  Great 
Britain;  Schleswig-Holstein  comprised  the  territories  wresti  I 
from  Denmark  in  1864;  Saxony  was  the  country  taken  from  the 
kingdom  of  Saxony  at  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  wars;  and 
Posen  represented  Prussia's  acquisitions  from  the  successive 
partitions  of  Poland  in  the  eighteenth  century.  The  loss  of  thou- 
sands of  square  miles  of  territory  under  the  terms  of  the  treaty 
of  Versailles  has  entailed  a  reconstruction  of  provincial  divisions 
—  as,  indeed,  of  administrative  areas  generally;  but  at  the  date 
of  writing  (1920)  the  new  arrangements  have  not  been  definitely 
worked  out.2 

In  the  organization  of  the  province  there  is  a  complete  separa- 

1  Ashley,  Local  and  ( \  niral  Govt  rnnu  nt,  130-132. 

2  In  this  connection  it  should  be  made  clear  thai  the  system  of  local  government 
here  described  is  that  which  existed  prior  to  the  German  defeat  in  the  Great  War. 
The  collapse  of  monarchy  and  of  the  old  Imperial  system  did  not,  however)  entail 
any  general  reorganization  <>f  the  local  machinery  of  justice  and  administration, 
whatever  changes  may  eventually  come  about. 


PRUSSIAN   GOVERNMENT  BEFORE   1914  671 

tion  of  functions  relating  to  the  affairs  of  the  state  as  a  whole 
(Staatsgeschdfte)  from  those  relating  only  to  matters  of  a  local 
nature.  In  the  circle,  as  will  appear,  the  two  sets  of  functions 
are  discharged  by  the  same  body  of  officials ;  in  the  district,  the 
functions  performed  are  wholly  of  a  national,  rather  than  a  local, 
character.  But  in  the  province  there  are  not  merely  two  sets  of 
functions  but  two  separate  groups  of  officials.  For  the  adminis- 
tration of  affairs  of  national  interest,  such  as  police,  education, 
and  religion,  the  authorities  within  the  province  are  (1)  the  Ober- 
prasident, or  chief  president,  appointed  by  the  central  government 
z-to  represent  it  in  matters  which  concern  the  entire  province  or 
reach  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  a  single  Regicrungsbezirk  adminis- 
tration, and  (2)  the  Provinzialrath,  a  provincial  council  consisting 
of,  besides  the  Oberprasident  or  his  representative  as  presiding 
officer,  one  professional  member  appointed  for  an  indefinite 
tenure  by  the  Minister  of  the  Interior  at  Berlin  and  five  ordinary 
citizen  members  elected,  usually  for  a  term  of  six  years,  by  the 
provincial  Ausschuss,  or  committee.  The  Oberprasident  is  the 
immediate  agent  of  the  ministry,  as  is  the  prefect  in  France ; 
none  the  less,  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  most  of  his  acts  are  valid 
only  after  having  received  the  assent  of  a  body  whose  members 
are  largely  chosen  within  the  province,  his  authority  is  not  quite 
absolute. 

By  the  side  of  this  official  group  stands  another,  quite  inde- 
pendent of  it,  for  the  control  of  affairs  of  purely  local  concern. 
Its  organs  comprise:  (1)  the  Provinzialausschuss,  or  provincial 
committee,  consisting  of  from  seven  to  fourteen  members  elected 
for  six  years  by  the  provincial  Landtag,  not  necessarily,  but 
almost  invariably,  from  its  own  membership  ;  (2)  a  Landeshaupt- 
mann  or  Landesdirektor,  a  salaried  executive  official  elected  by 
the  Landtag  for  six  or  twelve  years  and  confirmed  by  the  crown ; 
and  (3)  the  Provinziallandtag,  or  provincial  assembly.  The 
Landeshauptmann  is  the  executive,  the  Provinzialausschuss  the 
consultative,  organ  of  local  self-administration;  the  Provinzial- 
landtag is  the  provincial  legislature.  Members  of  the  Landtag 
are  elected  for  six  years  (one-half  retiring  every  three  years) 
by  the  diets  of  the  circles,  and  they  are,  as  a  rule,  local  adminis- 
trative officials  of  the  circles,  large  landowners,  and  other  well- 
to-do  persons.  Meetings  are  called  at  least  every  two  years. 
The  Landtag's  functions  include  the  supervision  of  charities, 
highways,  and  industry ;  the  voting  of  local  taxes  and  the  appor- 
tionment of  them  among  the  circles ;  the  enactment  of  local  laws ; 
the  custody  of  provincial  property ;   the  election  of  the  Landes- 


GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

hauplmann  and  the  members  of  the  provincial  committee;  and 
the  giving  of  advice  on  provincial  matters  at  the  requesl  of  the 
1 i  hi  ral  government. 

Local  Government:  Minor  Areas.  Each  province  is  divided 
into  Regierungsbezirke,  or  districts,  of  which  there  were  in  u 
thirty-six.  Unlike  the  province,  the  distrid  exists  for  purposes  of 
genera]  administration  only.  It  therefore  has  no  organs  of  self- 
government.  Its  Regierung,  or  "  administration,"  consists  of  a 
body  of  professional,  salaried  officials,  appointed  by  the  central 
government  and  having  at  its  head  the  Regierungsprdsident,  who 
is,  on  the  whole,  the  most  important  official  in  the  Prussian  local 
service.  The  subjects  that  fall  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Regierung,  including  taxation,  education,  religion,  forests,  etc., 
arc  very  comprehensive,  and  the  work  of  administration  is  carried 
on  chiefly  through  "  colleges,"  or  boards.  For  the  management 
of  police  and  the  supervision  of  local  bodies  there  exists  a  Bezirks- 
ausschuss,  or  district  committee,  composed  of  the  Regierungs- 
prdsident, two  other  persons  appointed  by  the  central  govern- 
ment, and  four  members  elected  by  the  Provinzialausschuss  for 
six  years.  A  very  important  function  of  this  body  since  1883  is 
that  of  sitting,  under  the  presidency  of  one  of  its  members  ap- 
pointed for  his  judicial  qualifications,  as  the  administrative  court 
of  the  district. 

In  the  Kreis,  or  circle,  as  in  the  province,  there  are  two  sharply 
distinguished  sets  of  governmental  functions,  the  general  and  the 
local ;  but  for  the  administration  of  both  there  is  a  single  hier- 
archy of  officials.  The  number  of  circles  was  in  1918  about  490, 
with  populations  varying  from  20,000  to  80,000.  Each  includes 
all  towns  lying  within  it  which  have  a  population  of  less  than 
25,000.  A  town  of  over  25,000  is  likely  to  be  created,  by  min- 
isterial order,  a  circle  within  itself,  in  which  case  the  functions 
of  government  are  exercised  by  the  municipal  authorities. 
The  essential  organs  of  government  within  the  Landkreise, 
or  country  circles,  arc  three:  the  Landrath,  the  Kreisausschuss, 
and  the  Kreistag.  The  Landrath  is  appointed  for  life  by  the 
central  government,  frequently  on  nomination  by  the  Kreistag, 
or  diet.  He  superintends  all  administrative  affairs,  general  and 
local,  within  the  circle;  fulfills  the  functions  of  chief  of  police; 
presides  over  the  Kreisausschuss  and  Kreistag;  and,  in  general, 
occupies  within  the  circle  the  place  occupied  within  the  province 
by  the  Ober  president.  Associated  with  him,  and  organized  under 
his  presidency,  is  the  Kreisausschuss,  or  circle  committee,  com- 
posed of  six  unofficial  members  elected  by  the   Kreistag  for  six 


PRUSSIAN  GOVERNMENT  BEFORE   19 14  673 

years.     In  addition  to  its  consultative  functions,  the  Kreisaus- 
schuss  sits  as  an  administrative  court  of  lowest  grade. 

^nfTlZreistag  is  the  legislative  body  of  the  circle.  Its  mem- 
bers, numbering  at  least  twenty-five,  are  elected  for  a  term  of  six 
years  by  three  Verbdnde,  or  colleges,  the  first  being  made  up  of 
the  cities,  the  second  of  the  large  rural  taxpayers,  the  third  of  a 
complicated  group  of  rural  interests  in  which  the  smaller  taxpayers 
and  delegates  of  the  communal  assemblies  preponderate.  The 
Kreistag  is  a  body  of  substantial  importance.  It  chooses, 
directly  or  indirectly,  all  the  elective  officials  of  the  circle,  of 
the  district,  and  of  the  province ;  it  creates  local  officers  and  regu- 
lates their  functions.  It  enacts  legislation  of  a  local  nature ;  and 
it  votes  the  taxes  required  for  both  its  own  and  the  provincial 
administration. 

The  smallest  of  Prussian  governmental  units  is  the  Gemeinde, 
or  commune.1  Of  communes  there  are  two  distinct  types,  the 
rural  {Landgemeinde)  and  the  urban  (Stadtgemeinde) .  The 
governments  of  the  rural  communes  (some  36,000  in  number 
up  to  1 91 8)  are  so  varied  that  any  general  description  of  them  is 
impossible.  They  rest  largely  upon  local  custom,  although  re- 
duced at  some  points  to  a  reasonable  uniformity  under  regu- 
lating statutes  such  as  were  enacted  for  the  communes  of  eight  of 
the  twelve  provinces  in  the  Landgemeinde-Ordnung  of  1891.2 
There  is  invariably  an  elective  Schulze,  or  chief  magistrate.  He  is 
assisted  ordinarily  by  from  two  to  six  aldermen  {Schofen)  or 
councilors.  And  there  is  generally  a  governing  body  (Gemeinde- 
vertretung),  composed  of  elected  representatives,  when  there  are 
as  many  as  forty  qualified  electors,  —  otherwise  the  people  acting 
in  the  capacity  of  a  primary  assembly  (Gemeindeversammlung) , 
—  for  the  decision  of  matters  relating  to  local  schools,  churches, 
highways,  and  similar  interests.  It  is  to  be  observed,  however, 
that  most  of  the  rural  communes  are  so  small  that  they  have 
neither  the  financial  resources  nor  the  administrative  ability  to 
maintain  a  government  of  much  virility.  Such  action  as  is  taken 
within  them  is  almost  invariably  taken  with  the  approval  of, 
and  under  the  guidance  of,  the  authorities  of  the  circle,  principally 
the  Landrath. 

In  their  governmental  arrangements  the  urban  communes 
are  more  uniform  than  the  rural  ones.     The  usual  authorities 

1  The  Amtsbezirk  is  essentially  a  judicial  district.  In  the  eastern  provinces  it 
is  utilized  also  for  purposes  of  police  administration. 

2  For  an  annotated  edition  of  this  important  instrument  see  F.  Keil,  Die  Landge- 
meinde-Ordnung (Leipzig,  1890). 


674  GOVERNMEN  rs  01     EUROPE 

are:  (i)  a  Stadtrath,  an  executive  body  consisting  of  a  burgo- 
master and  a  number  of  assistants,  ele<  ted  for  six,  nine,  or  twelve 
wars,  or  even  for  life,  and  (2)  a  Stadtoerordn6te,  or  municipal 
1  ouncil,  chosen  tor  from  three  to  Bis  years,  as  a  rule  by  an  elector- 
ate identical  with  that  which  returns  the  members  of  the  lower 
branch  of  the  Prussian  Landtag.1 

1  On  Prussian  Id.  al  government  see  Lowell.  Governments  and  Parlies,  I.  308-333; 
Goodnow,    Comparative    Administratis     Law,    I.   295-338;    and   Ashley,    Local 
rnment,   1  .     Fuller  accounts  arc  II.  <;.  James, 

Principles  of  Prussian  Administration  (New  Xbrk,  1913);  Schutee,  Das  f>r<  ;• 
Staatsrecht,  I,  436-538;    K..  Stangel,  Organisation  der  preussischen  VerwaUung,  2 
.  Bornhak,  Preussisches  Staatsrecht,  a  vols.  (Freiburg,  iSk.s- 
qo),  and  Hue  de  Grais,  Handbuch  der  Verfassung  and  VerwaUung  in  Preussen,  et< . 
(17th  ed.,  Berlin,  ioou).     Texts  of  local  governmenl  acts  are  printed  in  (',.  Anschutz, 
Organisations geselze  der  innern  VerwaUung  in  Preu    en     llerlin,  1897).     'II 
description  in  English  of  Prussian  municipal  government  is  Munro,  Goverm 
European  Cii  108.     A  good  brief  sketch  is  Ashley,  Local  and  Central  Govern- 

ment, 153-164.  i  be  best  account  in  German  is  H.  Kapplemann,  "Die  V<  rl 
und  Verwaltungsorganisation  der  preussischen  Stadte,"  mSckriften  des  VereinsfUr 
ipzig,  1905-08),  vols,  cxvii  cxix.  Mention  may  he  made  of  A.  Sha\y, 
timent  in  Continental  Europe  (New  York,  1895),  Chaps,  v  vi; 
E.  J.  James,  Municipal  Administration  in  Germany  (Chicago,  1901);  and  Leclerc, 
"  La  Vie  municipale  en  Prusse,"  in  Ann.  de  PEcole  Libre  des  Sei.  PoliL,  Oct.,  1888. 
For  an  extended  bibliography  see  Munro,  op.  oil.,  389-395. 


CHAPTER  XXXVII 

POLITICAL  FORCES   AND   PARTY   ALIGNMENTS   TO    1914 

The  Survival  of  Absolutism.  —  For  a  generation  before  the 
Great  War  Germany  was  a  parados  among  nations.  Her 
population  had  risen  since  1870  from  forty  millions  to  sixty- 
seven  millions;  her  advance  in  industry  and  trade,  and  her 
growth  in  wealth,  had  been  phenomenal ;  she  had  outdistanced 
most,  if  not  all,  of  the  world  in  the  application  of  science  to 
manufacturing  and  agriculture;  she  had  been  the  pioneer  in 
most  forms  of  social  legislation;  her  scholarship  was,  in  many 
fields,  unsurpassed ;  her  achievements  in  music,  art,  and  litera- 
ture commanded  the  world's  admiration.  But  alongside  these 
evidences  of  enlightenment  and  progress  stood  one  of  the  most 
antiquated  and  illiberal  governmental  systems  on  earth.  Not 
that  the  forms  of  liberalism  were  altogether  lacking.  "  Who- 
ever/' says  a  former  American  ambassador  to  Germany,  "  will 
take  in  hand  the  constitution  of  the  German  Empire  and  read  it 
merely  as  a  document  will  be  surprised,  if  not  already  familiar 
with  its  contents,  at  the  facade  of  liberalism  that  presents 
itself.  ...  Ninety-nine  one-hundredths  of  the  Imperial  con- 
stitution could  be  transcribed  into  the  constitution  of  the  most 
democratic  federal  state  without  serious  criticism."1  Nor  yet 
was  there  any  lack  of  orderliness  and  efficiency  in  public  ad- 
ministration. Not  even  the  Roman  government  in  its  best 
days,  nor  the  British  government  of  later  times,  executed  law, 
controlled  finance,  managed  the  armed  forces,  and  held  the 
allegiance  of  its  subjects  with  greater  success.  Enough  has  been 
said  in  preceding  chapters,  however,  to  make  it  plain  that  while 
the  German  people  may  have  had  orderly,  efficient,  and  even 
"  scientific  "  government,  this  government  was  not  of  their  own 
making,  and  was  not  under  their  control.  Autocracy  was  the 
price  they  paid  for  their  economic  and  social  advantages;  and, 
as  will  be  pointed  out  presently,  when  the  war  came  on  in  1914 
there  were  accumulating  evidences  that  they  had  begun  to  re- 
gard the  price  as  too  great. 

1  D.  J.  Hill,  Impressions  of  the  Kaiser  (New  York,  1918),  6. 
675 


676  GOVERNMENTS  OF    El  ROPE 

What  is  the  explanation  of  this  remarkable  survival  of  autoc- 
racy and  paternalism  in  a  country  of  much  general  enlighten- 
ment, and  in  an  age  of  rapidly  spreading  democracy?  A  full 
answer  would  demand  many  chapters  of  intricate  political  and 
social  history.  Enough  has  already  been  told,  however,  to  re- 
veal two  or  three  main  facts  in  the  situation,  especially  (1)  that 
for  a  decade  or  more  preceding  and  including  the  revolutionary 
years  184S  (.,  Germany  wavered  between  the  old  autocracy 
and  the  new  liberalism,  (2)  that,  because  of  their  lack  of  unity, 
experience,  and  practical  sense  the  liberal  elements  lost  their 
great  chance,  and  (3)  that  the  work  of  national  unification  and 
constitution-framing  accordingly  fell  to  the  ultra-conservative 
forces,  i.e.,  the  Prussian  government,  and  especially  Bismarck, 
who  had  the  organization,  the  political  skill,  and,  withal,  the 
military  force,  requisite  for  carrying  out  the  work  on  lines 
favorable  to  their  own  interest.  Once  securely  established,  the 
system  was  maintained  against  all  assaults,  until  the  military 
debacle  of  1918,  by  a  dynasty  of  divine-right  monarchs,  governing 
under  the  aegis  of  a  peculiarly  reactionary  Prussian  political 
philosophy,  supported  by  a  powerful .  landed  aristocracy,  equipped 
with  the  best  trained  army  in  the  world,  buttressed  by  an  im- 
posing and  apparently  invincible  Kullur,  and  grounded  upon  an 
ingrained  habit  of  popular  obedience.1 

The  Hohenzollern  Dynasty.  —  This  leads  to  a  somewhat 
closer  scrutiny  of  the  great  bulwarks  of  German  autocracy  in 
the  pre-war  period.  They  have,  indeed,  already  been  named  : 
the  Prussian  hegemony  ;  the  Hohenzollern  dynasty  ;  the  "  Jun- 
kers," or  landed  proprietors;  the  army;  the  somewhat  ill- 
defined  but  none  the  less  potent  body  of  ideals  and  practices 
known  as  Knltur ;  and  popular  submissiveness  and  inertia. 
Of  the  preponderance  of  Prussia,  as  a  state,  in  the  German 
Empire  enough  has  been  said.  In  characterizing  the  several  bul- 
warks of  autocracy,  however,  we  shall  still  be  speaking  of  Prussia  ; 
for  "  Prussianism  "  has  been  the  tap  root  of  German  illiberally 
of  thought  and  action. 

The  first  of  these  bulwarks  was  the  Hohenzollern  dynasty. 
The  Hohenzollerns  first  appear,  as  early  as  the  tenth  century, 
as  petty  counts  governing  from  a  castle  on  the  hill  of  Zollern 
near  the  present  northern  boundary  of  Switzerland.     Their  im- 

1  Attention  may  be  called  at  this  point  to  J.  Barthelemy,  Ijcs  institutions  politiques 
de  VAUemagne  contemporaine  (Paris,  1915),  a  book  which  is  not  wholly  free  from 
the  influence  of  war  psychology,  but  which  none  the  less  contains  an  admirable 
presentation  of  the  real  character  of  German  government  before  1914. 


PARTY  ALIGNMENTS  TO   1914  677 

portance  as  a  ruling  family  dates  from  the  early  fifteenth  century, 
when  the  Emperor  invested  them  with  the  electorate  of  Branden- 
burg, lying  along  the  Oder  River  and  including  the  future  site 
of  Berlin.  A  hundred  years  later  they  accepted  Lutheranism  and 
with  its  aid  began  building  up  leadership  in  the  Protestant  north. 
Another  hundred  years,  and  they  gained  by  cleverly  arranged 
marriage  alliances  the  duchy  of  Cleves,  carrying  their  power  to 
the  Rhine,  and  also  the  then  almost  purely  Slavic  duchy  of  East 
Prussia,  carrying  it  eastward  to  the  Russian  border.  In  the 
seventeenth  century  the  ruling  prince  was  known  simply  as  an 
"  elector."  But  in  1 701  Frederick  III,  son  of  the  "  Great  Elector," 
was  authorized  by  his  Imperial  overlord  to  take  the  title  of 
"  king."  The  title  was  first  borne  in  Prussia  alone;  and  hence 
Prussia,  rather  than  Brandenburg,  became  the  official  name  of 
the  entire  dominion.  Most  of  the  successive  rulers  —  particularly 
Frederick  William,  the  Great  Elector  (1640-88),  King  Frederick 
William  I  (1713-40),  and  King  Frederick  II,  or  Frederick  "  the 
Great  "  (1740-86)  —  were  masterful,  crafty,  autocratic  monarchs, 
and  during  their  long  and  eventful  reigns  the  power  of  the  dynasty 
steadily  grew,  by  conquests,  annexations,  alliances,  and  diplomatic 
strokes.  The  rulers  were  of  an  iron  race,  and  were  not  troubled 
with  scruples  in  dealing  with  either  friends  or  enemies.  They 
reigned  by  "  divine  right,"  had  nothing  but  contempt  for  ideas 
of  popular  sovereignty,  and  made  the  army  the  center  and  de- 
fense of  their  political  system. 

In  the  Napoleonic  period  Prussia  fell  on  evil  days ;  and  for 
half  a  century  afterwards  its  kings,  while  true  Hohenzollerns 
in  their  claims  to  divine  right  and  their  exaltation  of  the  army, 
were  cast  in  an  inferior  mold.  Even  William  I,  the  first  wearer 
of  the  new  Imperial  crown,  was  completely  overshadowed  by 
Bismarck.  At  his  death,  in  1888,  Prussia  (and  therefore  all 
Germany)  came  to  the  parting  of  the  political  ways.  The  heir 
to  the  throne  was  Frederick  III,  surnamed  "  the  Noble."  a  man 
of  known  liberal  views ;  and  while  he  had  declared  to  Bismarck 
three  years  earlier  that  he  had  no  intention  of  setting  up  a  parlia- 
mentary system  of  government,1  it  was  widely  believed  then, 
and  is  commonly  supposed  now,  that  he  was  an  admirer  of  the 
English  system  of  government,  and  that  if  he  had  lived,  the 
Imperial  constitution  would  have  been  interpreted  in  a  liberal 
spirit,  ministers  would  have  been  selected  with  a  view  to  har- 
mony with  majorities  in  the  Reichstag,  the  king  would  have 
become   rather  an  adviser  than  an  actual  executive,  and  the 

1  Reflections  and  Reminiscences,  II,  304-305. 


GOVERNMEN  is  OB    El  ROPE 

whole  tendency  would  have  been  toward  political  freedom  and 
responsibility.  Bui  Frederick  was  already  stricken  with  fatal 
disease  at  his  accession,  and  he  reigned  exactly  ninety-nine  days. 
His  death  brought  to  the  throne  tin-  "  young  man,"  as  Bismarck 
somewhal  contemptuously  railed  him,  William  II.1 

William  II  and  the  Prussian  Doctrine  of  Monarchy.  The 
triumphs  over  Austria  and  France,  the  return  of  the  victorious 
armies,  the  coronation  of  his  grandfather,  the  exhilaration  of  a 
unified  and  exalted  Germany,  the  new  prestige  of  Prussia,  the  in- 
toxicating successes  of  diplomat  and  soldier,  had  left  indelible 
impressions  upon  the  youthful  prince's  mind;  and  if  any  one 
wondered  what  the  new  ruler's  principles  and  policies  would  be, 
all  doubts  were  soon  cleared  away.  All  the  characteristics  and 
the  traditions  of  the  Hohenzollerns  found  place  in  William  II's 
make-up,  —  some  of  them,  multiplied  many  fold.  lie  believed 
implicitly  in  his  own  divine  right  to  rule.  In  iqio  he  declared  in 
an  address  at  Konigsberg  that  his  "grandfather  by  his  own  right 
placed  the  crown  upon  his  head,  Insisting  once  again  that  it  was 
bestowed  upon  him  by  the  grace  of  God  alone,  and  not  by  parlia- 
ments or  by  the  will  of  the  people.  ...  I,  too,  consider  myself 
a  chosen  instrument  of  Heaven,  and  I  shall  go  my  way  without 
regard  to  the  views  and  opinions  of  the  day."  "  Remember," 
he  said  in  a  proclamation  to  the  army  of  the  East  in  1914,  "  that 
the  German  people  arc  the  chosen  of  God.  On  me,  as  German 
Emperor,  the  spirit  of  God  has  descended.  I  am  His  weapon, 
His  sword,  and  His  vicegerent.  Woe  and  death  to  those  that 
shall  oppose  my  will.  Woe  and  death  to  those  who  do  not  be- 
lieve in  my  mission.  Let  them  perish,  all  the  enemies  of  the  Ger- 
man people !  God  demands  their  destruction,  God  who,  by  my 
mouth,  bids  you  do  His  will."  He  frankly  avowed  his  claim  to 
absolute  control  of  public  affairs.  "  There  is  but  one  master  in 
the  country,"  he  declared  in  1801 ;  "  it  is  I,  and  I  will  bear  no 
other."  He  held  the  constitutions  of  both  Prussia  and  the 
Empire  sacred,  because  they  allowed  free  play  for  autocracy. 
"  I  am  of  the  opinion,"  he  said  at  his  accession,  "  that  our  con- 
stitution establishes  a  just  and  useful  partition  of  public  powers 

1  \  popular  but  trustworthy  accounl  of  the  Hohenzollerns  to  the  time  of  William 
I  [  i    i  '  a.  n.  1  fodgi  1 1  -,  The  Hau  '.ollern  I  New  York,  19]  1 ).      The  most 

dispa?-'  William  IT  is  S.  Shaw.  William  of  Germany  (New  York,  1913). 

raphy  by  a  Eormer  Berlin  correspondent  of  the  London  Times  is 
itlder  and  Blunderer  (New  York,  1914).     A  principal  source  of  in- 
formation is  the  Emperor's  published    pei  <  hi   .  of  which  there  ar<  ditions, 
including  W.  von  Schierbrand  [ed.],  The  Kaiser's  Speeches  (New  York,  1903).    See 
de  Visscher,  La  Uberti  politique  en  AUemagne  el  la  dynastic  des  Hohenzollern 
(Paris,  1916). 


PAR'TY  ALIGNMENTS  TO   1914  679 

in  the  life  of  the  State ;  and  for  that  reason  also,  and  not  only 
because  of  my  oath,  I  will  observe  and  defend  it."  He  regarded 
education  as  the  handmaid  of  his  autocratic  government.  Of  the 
elementary  school  teacher  and  the  university  professor  alike  he 
said  :  "  According  to  his  rights  and  duties,  he  is,  in  the  first  place, 
a  state  official.  In  this  position  he  should  do  what  is  demanded 
of  him.  He  should  teach  the  young  and  prepare  them  for  re- 
sisting all  revolutionary  aims."  "  I  want  soldiers,"  he  said 
angrily,  when  complaining  that  the  schools  made  their  pupils 
near-sighted. 

The  doctrine  of  divine  right  lost  its  influence  in  England  with 
the  final  downfall  of  the  Stuarts,  in  France  at  the  time  of  the 
Revolution,  in  Belgium  at  the  establishment  of  national  in- 
dependence, in  Italy  during  the  unification.  In  Germany,  and 
especially  in  Prussia,  it  lived  on.  The  monarchs  continually 
reasserted  it ;  and  no  organized  portion  of  the  people  except  the 
Social  Democrats  developed  a  political  philosophy  that  was  op- 
posed to  it.  The  attitude  of  the  political  theorists  and  the  consti- 
tutional jurists  prior  to  1918  was  not  clear.  They  had  not,  of 
late,  given  the  doctrine  direct  support.  Yet  they,  or  most  of 
them,  enunciated  views  which  led  to  the  same  general  result. 
They  taught  that  the  Teutons  are,  by  very  nature,  monarchically 
minded ;  that  only  by  means  of  strong  monarchy  could  their 
Kultur  be  maintained  and  spread  throughout  the  world ;  that 
the  problem  of  efficient  government  is  one  that  under  most 
circumstances  can  best  be  solved  when  strong  monarchical 
direction  and  control  is  provided ;  and  that  for  Germany, 
considered  with  reference  to  her  relations  with  the  neighboring 
states  and  her  general  position  in  world  politics,  strong  monarchy 
was  indispensable.  The  apotheosis  of  political  power  which  one 
finds  in  their  treatises  raises  the  acts  of  the  monarch,  as  one  writer 
has  put  it,  "  above  the  plane  within  which  considerations  of 
ordinary  morality  apply,  and  ascribes  to  the  political  entity  a 
welfare  and  a  purpose  other  than  and  distinct  from,  and  in  some 
cases  not  even  related  to,  the  welfare  of  the  individuals  who  are 
subject  to  its  authority." l 

1  Willoughby,  "The  Prussian  Theory  of  Monarchy,"  Amer.  Polit.  Sci.  Rev., 
Nov.,  191 7.  For  a  more  extensive  discussion  of  the  subject  see  the  same  writer's 
Prussian  Political  Philosophy  (New  York,  1018),  Chaps,  ii-v.  The  most  influential 
German  treatise  on  political  theory  is  H.  von  Treitschke,  Politik,  2  vols.  (Leipzig, 
1898-90),  trans,  by  B.  Dugdale  and  T.  de  Bille  as  Politics,  2  vols.  (New  York,  1916). 
For  an  appraisal  of  Treitschke's  influence  see  H.  W.  C.  Davis,  The  Political  Thought 
of  Heinrich  von  Treitschke  (London,  1914),  and  A.  Hausrath,  Treitschke  (New  York, 
1914).  J.  Dewey,  German  Philosophy  and  Politics  (New  York,  1915),  deals  largely 
with  the  general  point  of  view  represented  by  Treitschke.      For   William    II's 


680  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

The  Army.  Of  cardinal  importance  was,  of  course,  the 
Emperor's  attitude  toward  the  army,  whose  sure  supporl  was 
for    generations   one    of    autocracy's    mightiest    assets.     "The 

absolute  and  indestructible  fidelity  of  the  army,"  runs  the  Raiser'  - 
rescript  addressed  to  the  soldiery  on  the  <lay  of  liis  accession, 
"  is  the  heritage  transmitted  from  father  to  son,  from  generation 
to    generation.  .  .  .     We    are    inseparably    united.  .  .  .     We 

arc  made  for  each  other,  I  and  the  army,  and  we  shall  remain 
closely  attached  whether  God  gives  us  peace  or  storm."  Ad- 
dressing a  body  of  recruits  in  1891,  he  declared:  "You  are 
now  my  soldiers;  you  have  given  yourselves  to  me  body  and 
soul.  There  is  now  but  one  enemy  for  you,  and  that  is  my 
enemy."  Paraphrasing,  on  another  occasion,  the  famous  say- 
ing of  Bismarck,  he  asserted  :  "  The  soldier  and  the  army,  not 
parliamentary  majorities,  have  welded  together  the  German 
Empire  —  my  confidence  is  placed  in  the  army."  From  these 
and  many  other  expressions  that  could  be  quoted,  it  is  evident 
that  William  II  looked  upon  the  army  as  a  dynastic  possession, 
and  as  a  personal  tool  wherewith  to  uphold  the  existing  order  of 
things  and  carry  out  the  imperial  purposes.  It  was  the  army,  as 
one  writer  has  put  it,  that  "  could  enable  him  to  read  into  the 
Imperial  constitution  the  full  meaning  of  the  Hohenzollern 
traditions,  and  make  the  whole  realm  what  his  ancestors  had 
made  Prussia,  a  patrimonial  estate  to  be  transmitted  by  him 
to  future  generations  of  his  House."1  The  various  devices  by 
which  the  entire  German  military  establishment  was  brought 
under  Prussian  control,  and  accordingly  under  the  absolute 
direction  of  the  Kaiser,  have  been  explained  elsewhere.2  "  Tin- 
question  by  which  to  decide  the  essential  character  of  a  state," 
says  a  German  scholar,  is,  "  Whom  does  the  army  obey?"  To 
1918,  this  question  in  Germany  could  be  answered  in  only  one 
way.  The  Reichstag  had  practically  no  authority  over  it ;  the 
states  had  largely  surrendered  their  control ;  the  Kaiser  alone 
dominated;  even  the  army  budget  was  voted,  not  annually,  as 
in  England,  France,  and  the  United  States,  where  the  military 
is  under  the  full  control  of  the  civil  power,  but  for  five-year 
periods.3 

conception  of  his  offi<  e  and  function  sec  von  Schierbrand,  The  Kaiser's  Speeches,  pas- 
sim, and  H.  Perris,  Germany  and  the  German  Emperor  I  New  York,  1912),  Chap.  viii. 

1  Hill,  Impressions  of  the  Kaiser,  10. 

2  See  pp.  632  633. 

3  For  farther  expressions  of  William  H's  attitude  toward  the  army  and  navy  see 
von  Schierbrand,  The  Kaiser's  Speeches,  Chaps,  x-xi.  The  classic  glorification  of 
the  army  and  of  military  power  as  a  factor  in  national  life  is  F.  von  Bernhardi, 


PARTY   ALIGNMENTS  TO    19 14  681 

The  "Junkers."  —  Another  bulwark  of  autocratic  govern- 
ment was  the  landed  aristocracy  of  eastern  and  northeastern 
Prussia.  German  agrarian  development  has  been  regional  rather 
than  national ;  that  is  to  say,  the  ownership  and  use  of  land 
took  a  different  trend  in  each  of  three  main  sections  of  the 
country.  The  southwest  (including  Bavaria,  Baden,  Wurttem- 
berg,  and  Rhenish  Prussia)  became,  like  France,  a  land  of  small 
holdings,  and  up  to  the  Great  War  was  the  only  part  of  the  Em- 
pire in  which  it  was  possible  to  discover  peasant  political  influence 
of  any  importance.  The  northwest  (including  Westphalia,  Lower 
Saxony,  and  parts  of  Hanover)  developed  a  system  of  medium-to- 
large  holdings,  yet  with  many  peasant  proprietorships.  From 
Brandenburg  eastward,  however,  —  and  especially  in  the  Prus- 
sian provinces  of  East  Prussia,  West  Prussia,  Posen,  and  Pom- 
erania,  —  practically  all  of  the  land  was  long  ago  gathered  into 
great  estates,  and  most  of  the  people  are  landless,  wage-earning 
agricultural  laborers.  The  larger  part  of  German  agricultural 
land  is  not  contained  in  the  great  estates  of  the  north  and  east, 
and  the  national  policy  which  is  most  profitable  for  the  owners 
of  these  estates  is  not  necessarily  advantageous  for  the  country's 
agricultural  interests  as  a  whole.  Still  less  is  it  necessarily 
advantageous  for  the  people  generally.  For  forty  years,  how- 
ever, the  ultra-conservative,  privileged,  haughty,  and  oppressive 
landed  aristocracy  of  Prussia  held  a  rod  of  iron  over  the  indus- 
trial classes,  and  over  the  government  itself.  When  Chancellor 
Caprivi  reduced  the  protective  duties  on  imports  of  grain,  these 
landed  magnates  demanded  and  obtained  his  dismissal ;  and  in 
1902  they  brought  about  a  restoration  of  such  duties  on  foodstuffs 
as  would  keep  prices  of  their  own  products  at  a  high  level.  For 
decades  these  Agrarians,  or  "  Junkers,"  supplied  practically 
all  the  officers  of  the  army  and  navy,  and  almost  monopolized 
the  civil  offices  as  well.  If  Prussia  ruled  Germany,  the  Junkers 
ruled  Prussia,  and  through  it  the  Empire  itself.  They  were  a 
main  prop  of  the  Hohenzollern  dynasty  and  of  its  autocratic, 
irresponsible  system  of  government.1 

Kultur.  —  Still  another  foundation  stone  of  German  autocracy 
has  been  the  concept  and  influence  of  Kultur.  This  term,  al- 
though constantly  recurring  in  the  discussions  of  the  war  period, 
practically    defies    definition.     The    English    word    "  culture " 

Germany  and  the  Next  War,  trans,  by  A.  H.  Powles  (New  York,  1914).  See  also 
Baron  Beyens,  Germany  before  the  War,  trans,  by  P.  V.  Cohn  (London,  1916), 
Chap,  iii,  and  M.  Smith,  Militarism  and  Statecraft  (New  York,  191 8),  171-200.    • 

1  On  German  agrarian  history  in  the  nineteenth  century  see  Ogg,  Economic 
Development  of  Modern  Europe,  Chap,  ix  (bibliography,  pp.  210-21 1). 


GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

Is  too  narrow  to  be  considered  an  equivalent ;  the  word  "  civili- 
sation "  is  somewhat  too  broad.  The  term  includes  not  only 
Learning  in  the  ordinary  sense,  but  attitude,  spirit,  tempera 
ment,  ambition,  achievement,  purpose.  The  concepts  involved 
in  it  have  important  political  bearings  for  several  reasons.  In 
the  first  place,  Kultur  was  state-made'.  It  was,  in  the  German 
view,  the  highest  product  of  the  schools  and  the  universities, 
all  of  which  were  completely  controlled  by  the  state.  In  the 
second  place,  it  was  inextricably  linked  to  militarism.  The  union 
of  culture  and  militarism  was  the  very  bedrock  of  German  edu- 
cation. Furthermore,  it  was  not  personal,  but  national.  The 
nation  created  and  propagated  it,  and  all  the  people  shared  in 
it.  "  They  have  all  had  it  at  the  same  school.  And  it  is  all 
the  same  brand  of  culture,  because  no  other  is  taught.  It  is 
the  culture  with  which  the  government  wishes  its  citizens  to  be 
equipped.  That  is  why  all  Germans  tend  not  only  to  know  the 
same  facts,  .  .  .  but  to  have  a  similar  outlook  on  life  and 
similar  opinions  about  Goethe,  Shakespeare,  and  the  German 
navy.  Culture,  like  military  service,  is  a  part  of  the  state  ma- 
chinery."1 Being  a  national  rather  than  a  mere  personal  posses- 
sion, k'ul tiir  was  systematically  and  deliberately  handed  on  by 
the  state  from  generation  to  generation,  ready  for  use  in  what- 
ever manner  the  state  should  desire  and  direct.  It  was  an  inte- 
gral body  of  ideas  and  attitudes,  which  went  steadily  forward  in 
lines  of  entire  unity  and  self-consistency. 

Finally,  it  maintained  itself,  under  the  guidance  of  the  state, 
by  ceaseless  struggle.  As  German  scholars  and  statesmen 
looked  into  the  future  they  saw  nothing  but  conflict  —  perpet- 
ual conflict  between  rival  national  "  cultures,"  each  seeking  to 
crush  out  its  competitors.  No  amalgamation,  no  real  amity, 
no  compromise  even,  was  possible.  "  In  the  struggle  between 
nationalities,"  writes  Prince  von  Billow,  "  one  nation  is  the  ham- 
mer and  the  other  is  the  anvil ;  one  is  the  victor  and  the  other  the 
vanquished.  It  is  a  law  of  life  and  development  in  history  that 
when  two  national  civilizations  meet  they  light  for  supremacy."  : 
And  the  thought  was  that  they  fight  not  alone  with  the  pen  but 
with  the  sword.  Every  culture  considers  itself  superior;  only 
force  can  settle  the  issue.  "  A  Luther  and  a  Goethe  may  be 
the  puppets  pitted  in  a  contest  of  culture  against  Maeterlinck 
and  Victor  Hugo.  But  it  is  Krupp  and  Zeppelin  and  the  War- 
Lord  that  pull  the  strings." 

1  A.  E.  Zimmern,  Nationality  and  Government  (New  York,  1918),  7. 
2 Imperial  Germany,  trans,  by  M.  A.  Lewelia  (New  York,  1914),  245. 


PARTY   ALIGNMENTS  TO   1914  683 

Kultur  as  the  Germans  developed  it  thus  became  a  mighty 
bulwark  of  autocracy.  It  owed  its  origin  and  character  to 
absolutist  state  control;  it  was  systematically  employed  to 
promote  the  unity  of  the  nation  and  to  stimulate  pride  in  and 
loyalty  to  the  omnipotent  state ;  it  was  at  once  the  cause  and  the 
chief  support  of  a  policy  of  domination  and  aggression  toward 
other  nations.  Its  peculiar  effectiveness  was  derived  largely 
from  the  people's  ingrained  habit  of  obedience,  bred,  in  part, 
of  centuries  of  experience  when  security  depended  absolutely  upon 
the  allegiance  of  the  vassal  to  his  lord,  and  when  the  economic 
ties  of  serfdom  bound  the  peasants  almost  irrevocably  to  their 
masters  —  bred  also,  in  part,  of  Bismarckian  doctrine  and  prac- 
tice, and  again,  in  part,  of  the  patriotism  and  pride  that  laid 
hold  upon  the  German  mind  in  the  great  era  of  unification  and 
expansion.1 

The  Party  Situation  to  1914 :  General  Aspects.  —  A  final 
condition  which  contributed,  negatively  yet  powerfully,  to  the 
perpetuation  of  the  autocratic  regime  was  the  inability  of  the 
liberal  and  discontented  forces  to  come  together  in  support  of  a 
plan  of  reform.  "  It  will  be  recalled,"  said  a  writer  a  few  years 
ago,  "  that  in  England  the  first  triumph  of  democracy  came  as  a 
result  of  a  combination  of  the  middle  and  working  classes,  who 
forced  through  the  reform  bill  of  1832  ;  in  France  a  similar  com- 
bination succeeded  in  the  revolution  of  1839.  History  has  proved 
that  it  takes  two  classes  out  of  power  to  cope  successfully  with 
one  class  in  power.  In  Germany  the  working  classes  have  con- 
tinually refused  to  combine  with  the  middle  classes  against  the 
intrenched  aristocracy,  on  the  ground  that  the  middle  classes 
would  reap  the  benefit,  as  in  England  in  1832  and  in  France  in 
1830.  Although  the  middle  classes  are  opposed  to  the  autocratic 
regime,  they  have  consistently  refused  to  combine  with  the  work- 
ingmen  to  overthrow  it,  because  they  fear  that  the  latter,  who  are 
largely  Socialists,  might  endeavor  to  establish  a  socialistic  re- 
public, as  was  attempted  in  France  in  1848  and  in  the  Com- 
mune of  1 871.     Its  opponents  being  thus  divided,  the  autocratic 

1  Two  expositions  of  Kultur  by  German  writers  are  E.  Troltsch,  "The  Spirit  of 
German  Kultur,"  in  Modern  Germany  in  Relation  to  the  Great  War  (New  York, 
1915),  and  K.  Francke,  Glimpses  of  Modern  German  Culture  (New  York,  1898). 
A  valuable  compilation  of  typical  extracts  from  original  sources  revealing  the  Ger- 
man spirit  is  Conquest  and  Kultur,  published  in  three  parts  by  the  U.  S.  Committee 
on  Public  Information  (Washington,  1917).  An  exposition  by  a  fairminded  English 
writer  is  W.  H.  Dawson,  What  is  Wrong  with  Germany?  (New  York,  1915).  In 
this  connection  may  be  mentioned  J.  W.  Gerard,  My  Four  Years  in  Germany  (New 
York,  191 7).  There  is  no  better  brief  presentation  of  the  subject  than  Zimmern, 
Nationality  and  Government,  Chap.  i. 


684  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

system,  supported  by  the  landed  aristocracy,  or  Junkers,  has 
been  able  to  maintain  itself  without  serious  difficulty."  * 

This  leads  us  to  a  brief  inquiry  into  the  history  and  nature  of 
political  parties  and  party  groups  in  the  Empire.  The  first 
fact  that  stands  out  is  that  while  political  life  was  in  many  re- 
spects intense,  parties  as  such  were  of  less  governmental  import- 
ance than  in  England,  France,  or  Italy.  The  reason  is  obvious. 
In  the  countries  mentioned  public  policy  is  controlled  by  the 
people  —  and  by  the  people  organized  in  parties ;  government, 
as  has  been  pointed  out,  is  government  by  party.  In  the  Germany 
of  pre-war  days  the  people  did  not  control.  For  purposes  of 
propaganda  or  self -protection  they  grouped  themselves  in 
parties ;  but  these  parties  did  not,  as  such,  formulate  and 
carry  out  public  policy.  Government  was  above  party,  not 
by  party.  Certain  party  groups  lent  the  Emperor  fairly  con- 
sistent support,  but  it  was  not  they  as  such  that  mapped  out 
policy,  executed  it,  and  bore  responsibility  for  it.  Their  part 
was  only  to  suggest,  or  at  the  most  to  criticize.  The  true  func- 
tions of  party  can  be  developed  only  under  a  popular  form  of 
government.2 

A  second  fact  is  that  Germany  had  no  bi-party  system,  but 
rather  a  multiplicity  of  parties  and  party  groups,  so  that,  as  in 
France  and  Italy,  no  one  party  was  ever  able  to  command  a 
majority  in  the  popular  assembly.  There  was  no  cabinet 
system  of  government,  and  the  tenure  of  the  Chancellor  and 
ministers  was  in  no  wise  directly  dependent  upon  the  maintenance 
of  any  particular  party  majority  in  the  Reichstag.  Practically, 
of  course,  the  government  must  have  sufficient  support  there  to 
insure  the  enactment  of  its  budgets  and  of  its  legislative  proposals. 
To  be  effective  and  trustworthy,  this  support  must  be  organized, 
and  hence,  in  practice,  there  Was  always  a  recognized  "  govern- 
ment majority."  Party  division,  however,  was  carried  so  far 
that  this  majority  must  at  all  times  be  composed  of  two  or  three 
groups,  more  or  less  precariously  united  in  a  bloc.  Thus  Bis- 
marck at  one  time  governed  with  the  combined  aid  of  the  Con- 
servatives, Free  Conservatives,  and  National  Liberals,  and  von 
Biilow  worked  first  with  a  "Blue-Black  "  (Conservative-Center) 
bloc,  and  later  with  a  similar  affiliation  of  Conservatives  and 
Liberals. 

1  Schapiro,  Modern  and  Contemporary  European  History,  283. 

2  See  Prince  von  Billow's  frank  discussion  of  the  contrast  between  party  responsi- 
bility in  states  ruled  by  parliaments  and  party  irresponsibility  in  Germany.  Im- 
perial Germany,  150-151. 


PARTY  ALIGNMENTS  TO   1914  685 

A  third  fact  is  that  German  parties  were  exceptionally  "  par- 
ticularistic;  "  that  is,  they  were  not  broadly  national,  drawing 
support  from  all  parts  of  the  country  and  from  all  classes  of 
people,  but  were  constituted,  rather,  on  lines  of  race,  section, 
and  class.  There  were  several  minor  parties  in  the  newer  por- 
tions of  Prussia,  and  of  the  Empire,  which  were  preeminently  of 
this  character.  Thus  the  Guelfs,  or  Hanoverische  Rechtspartei, 
existed  to  voice  protest  against  the  absorption  of  the  kingdom  of 
Hanover  into  Prussia  in  1866 ;  the  Danes  demanded  the  cession 
of  Danish-speaking  Schleswig  to  Denmark ;  the  Poles  comprised 
the  Slavic  voters  of  the  provinces  of  West  Prussia,  Posen,  and 
Silesia,  whose  representatives  in  the  Reichstag  were  expected  to 
make  continual  protest  against  Prussia's  annexation  of  the  Polish 
territories  and  against  the  ruthless  attempts  to  Germanize  the 
subject  population ;  the  Alsatians  similarly  protested  against 
the  incorporation  of  Alsace-Lorraine  into  the  Empire,  and  de- 
manded complete  autonomy,  so  long  as  separation  could  not  be 
obtained.  The  Antisemites  comprised  a  group  formed  in  1879, 
on  a  somewhat  different  basis,  with  a  view  to  curbing  Jewish 
influence  in  politics  and  finance.  But  the  greater  parties  were 
also  far  less  coextensive  with  national  boundaries,  and  far  less 
representative  of  all  elements  of  society,  than  are  the  parties  of 
England,  France,  or  the  United  States.  Only  one,  the  Social 
Democratic  party,  could  lay  claim  to  substantial  strength  through- 
out the  entire  Empire ;  and  even  it  was,  in  the  first  place,  a 
class  party,  to  which  few  people  besides  workingmen  belonged, 
and  in  the  second  place,  a  party  whose  support  was  drawn  al- 
most wholly  from  the  cities. 

Party  Development :  the  Older  Groups.  —  The  party  situation 
as  it  had  taken  shape  by  1914  resulted  from  the  gradual  disinte- 
gration of  two  great  political  groups  which  included  most  of  the 
people  of  Prussia  when  Bismarck  entered  upon  his  ministry ; 
and  the  parties  of  the  Empire  and  of  the  Prussian  kingdom 
were,  for  all  practical  purposes,  identical.  The  two  original 
Prussian  groups  were  the  Conservatives  and  the  Fortschritt,  or 
Progressives.  From  the  revolution  of  1848  to  the  war  with 
Austria  in  1866  the  former,  which  was  preeminently  the  party 
of  the  clergy  and  of  the  landed  aristocracy  of  the  northern  and 
eastern  parts  of  the  kingdom,  completely  dominated  the  govern- 
ment and  the  army.  Following  the  triumph  over  Austria,  how- 
ever. Conservative  power  declined,  and  the  long  process  of  party 
dissolution  and  realignment  set  in  by  which  German  political 
life  was  brought  to  the  confused  condition  in  which  it  was  found 


GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

at  the  opening  of  the  Great  War.  To  begin  with,  each  of  the 
two  original  parties  l>n>kc  into  two  distind  groups.  From  the 
Conservatives  sprang  the  Frei  Conservaiiven,  or  Free  Conserva- 
tives; From  the  Fortschritt,  the  National-Liberal-Partei,  or  Na- 
tional Liberal-.  I:i  the  one  ease  the  new  group  drew  off  the  more 
advanced  elements  of  the  old  one,  in  the  other,  the  more  mod- 
erate ;  so  that,  in  the  order  of  radicalism,  the  parties  of  the  decade 
following  [866  were  the  Conservatives,  the  Free  Conservatives, 
the  National  Liberals,  and  the  new  Fortschritt,  or  Radicals. 
Among  these  four  groups  Bismarck  was  able  to  win  for  his  policy 
of  German  unification  the  support  of  the  two  most  moderate, 
that  is  to  say,  the  second  and  third.  The  Conservatives  clung  to 
the  particularistic  regime  of  earlier  days,  and  the  genius  of 
"  blood  and  iron  "  broke  definitely  with  them  in  1866.  The 
Free  Conservatives  included  at  the  outset  simply  those  elements 
of  the  original  Conservative  party  who  were  willing  to  follow 
Bismarck. 

Similarly  among  the  Progressives  there  was  division  upon  the 
attitude  to  be  taken  toward  the  Bismarckian  program.  The 
more  radical  wing  of  the  party,  i.e.,  that  which  maintained  the 
name  and  the  policies  of  the  original  Fortschritt,  refused  to 
abandon  its  opposition  to  militarism  and  monarchism,  opposed 
the  constitution  of  1867  for  its  illiberally,  and  withheld  from  Bis- 
marck's government  all  substantial  support.  The  larger  por- 
tion of  the  party  members,  however,  were  willing  to  subordinate 
for  a  time  to  Bismarck's  nationalizing  projects  the  contest  whi<  h 
the  united  Fortschritt  had  long  been  waging  in  behalf  of  con- 
stitutionalism. The  party  of  no  compromise  was  strongest  in 
Berlin  and  the  towns  of  East  Prussia.  It  was  almost  exclusively 
Prussian.  The  National  Liberals,  on  the  contrary,  early  became 
an  essentially  German,  rather  than  simply  a  Prussian,  party. 
Even  before  1871  they  formed,  in  point  both  of  numbers  and  of 
power,  the  preponderating  party  in  both  Prussia  and  the  Con- 
federation as  a  whole;  and  after  1871,  when  the  Nationalists  of 
the  southern  states  cast  in  their  lot  with  the  National  Liberals, 
the  party's  predominance  was  assured.  Upon  the  National 
Liberals,  as  the  party  of  unity  and  uniformity.  Bismarck  relied 
absolutely  for  support  in  the  upbuilding  of  the  Empire.  It  was 
only  in  1878,  after  the  party  had  lost  control  of  the  Reichstag, 
in  consequence  of  the  reaction  against  Liberalism  which  (lowed 
from  the  great  religious  controversy  known  as  the  Kulturkampf, 
that  the  Chancellor  was  in  a  position  to  escape  from  his  more  01 
uncomfortable  dependence  upon  the  Liberal  alliance. 


PARTY  ALIGNMENTS  TO   1914  687 

Party  Development :  the  Newer  Groups.  —  Meanwhile  the 
field  occupied  by  the  various  parties  that  have  been  named  was 
cut  into  by  a  number  of  newly  organized  parties  and  groups. 
Most  important  among  these  were  the  Clericals,  or  Center, 
and  the  Social  Democrats.  The  origins  of  the  Center  may  be 
traced  to  a  project  formulated  in  December,  1870,  to  found  a 
new  party,  a  party  which  should  be  essentially  Catholic,  and 
which  should  have  for  its  purpose  the  defense  of  society  against 
radicalism,  of  the  states  against  the  central  government,  and  of 
the  schools  against  secularization.  The  party  first  gained  strength 
in  the  Rhenish  and  Polish  provinces  of  Prussia  and  in  Bavaria, 
and  in  1871  it  was  able  to  win  a  total  of  sixty  seats  in  the  Reichs- 
tag. Employed  by  the  Catholic  clergy  during  the  ensuing 
decade  to  maintain  the  cause  of  the  papacy  against  the  machi- 
nations of  Bismarck,  the  party  early  struck  root  deeply ;  and 
on  account  of  the  absolute  identification  in  the  public  mind  of 
its  interests  with  the  interests  of  the  Catholic  Church,  insuring 
its  preponderance  in  the  states  of  the  south,  and  also  by  reason 
of  the  fact  that  it  was  always  more  successful  than  any  of  its 
older  rivals  in  maintaining  compactness  of  organization,  it  be- 
came, and  long  remained,  the  strongest  numerically  of  political 
groups  in  the  Reichstag. 

The  Social  Democratic  party  was  founded  in  1869  under  the 
leadership  of  Wilhelm  Liebknecht  and  August  Bebel.  In  1863 
there  had  been  organized  at  Leipzig,  under  the  inspiration  of 
Ferdinand  Lassalle,  a  Universal  German  Workingman's  Asso- 
ciation. The  two  bodies  were  for  a  time  keen  rivals,  but  at  a 
congress  held  at  Gotha,  in  May,  1875,  they  (together  with  a  num- 
ber of  other  socialistic  societies)  were  merged  in  one  organiza- 
tion, which  has  continued  to  this  day  to  be  known  as  the  Social 
Democratic  party.  The  development  of  socialism  in  the  Empire 
between  1870  and  1880  was  phenomenal.  At  the  parliamentary 
elections  of  1871  the  Social  Democratic  vote  was  124,655  (three 
per  cent  of  the  total),  and  two  Social  Democrats  were  returned  to 
the  Reichstag.  In  1874  the  popular  vote  was  351,952,  and  nine 
members  were  elected;  in  1877  it  was  493,288,  and  twelve 
candidates  were  successful.  Emperor  William  I  and  his 
Chancellor,  Bismarck,  as  indeed  the  governing  and  well-to-do 
classes  generally,  viewed  the  progress  of  the  movement  with 
frankly  avowed  apprehension.  Most  of  the  great  projects  of  the 
Imperial  government  were  opposed  by  the  Social  Democrats, 
and  the  members  of  the  party  were  charged  with  being  enemies 
of  the  entire  existing  order,  and  even  of  civilization  itself.     Two 


688  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

attempts  in  1878  upon  the  life  of  the  Emperor,  made  by  men  who 
were  socialists,  but  disavowed  by  the  socialists  as  a  body,  gave 
the  authorities  an  opporunity  to  enter  upon  a  <  ampaign  of  socialist 
repression,  and  from  [878  to  [890  stringent  anti-socialist  Legisla- 
tion was  on  the  statute-book  and  was  vigorously  enforced.  At 
the  same  time  that  effort  was  being  made-  to  stamp  out  socialist 
propaganda,  a  remarkable  series  of  social  reforms  was  undertaken, 
with  the  purpose  not  only  of  promoting  the  public-  well-being, 
but  of  cutting  the  ground  from  under  the  socialists'  feet,  or,  as 
s  'me  one  has  observed,  of  "  curing  the  Empire  of  socialism  by 
inoculation."  The  most  important  steps  taken  in  this  direction 
were  the  introduction  of  sickness  insurance  in  1883,  of  accident 
insurance  in  1884,  and  of  old-age  and  invalidity  insurance  in 
1889.1 

For  a  time  the  government's  measures  seemed  to  accomplish 
their  purpose,  and  the  official  press  loudly  proclaimed  that 
socialism  in  Germany  was  extinct.  In  reality,  however,  the 
cult  thrived  on  persecution.  In  the  hour  of  Bismarck's  apparent 
triumph  socialist  ideas  were  being  propagated  covertly  in 
every  corner  of  the  Empire.  A  party  organ  known  as  the  Social 
Democrat  was  published  in  Switzerland,  and  thousands  of  copies 
,'ound  their  way  every  week  across  the  border  and  were  passed 
from  hand  to  hand  among  earnest  readers  and  converts.  A 
compact  organization  was  maintained,  a  treasury  was  established 
and  kept  well  filled,  and  long  afterwards  the  Social  Democrats 
were  accustomed  to  assert,  with  apparent  truth,  that  they  owed 
their  excellent  organization  in  no  small  measure  to  the  Bis- 
marckian  era  of  repression.  At  the  elections  of  1878  the  party 
cast  only  437,158  votes;  but  in  1884  its  vote  was  549,990  (9.7 
per  cent  of  the  whole),  and  the  contingent  of  representatives 
returned  to  the  Reichstag  numbered  twenty-four.  In  1890  the 
socialist  vote  attained  the  enormous  total  of  1,427,298  (19.7 
per  cent  of  the  whole),  and  the  number  of  representatives  was 
increased  to  thirty-live.  Repression  was  manifestly  a  failure, 
and  in  the  year  mentioned  the  Reichstag,  with  the  sanction  of 
the  new  emperor,  William  II.  wisely  dei  lined  to  renew  the  pro- 
iptive  statute.  Thereafter,  development  went  on  even  more 
rapidly.  In  [893  the  popular  vote  was  [,876,738,  and  the  quota 
of  elected  representatives  was  forty  four;  in  [896  the  vote  was 
slightly  over  two  millions,  and  the  quota  was  fifty-seven;  in 
1903  the  vote  went  beyond  three  millions  (twenty-four  per  cent 

.,  Economic  Development  of  Modem  Europe,  Chap,  xxiv;  W.  H.  Dawson, 

Social  Insurance  in  Gcrma>iy,  1883-1911  (London,  1912). 


PARTY  ALIGNMENTS  TO   19 14  689 

of  the  total,  and  larger  than  that  of  any  other  one  party),  and 
the  quota  was  increased  to  seventy- nine.1 

The  Reichstag  Elections  of  1907  and  1912.  —  The  chancellor- 
ship of  Caprivi  (1890-94)  brought  the  government  into  a  position 
where  it  was  compelled  to  rely  for  support  in  the  Reichstag  upon 
a  coalition  of  the  Conservatives  and  Clericals,  popularly  known 
(from  the  party  colors)  as  the  "  Blue-Black  bloc" ;  and  this 
situation  continued  through  the  chancellorship  of  Hohenlohe- 
Schillingsfurst  (1894-1900)  and  well  into  that  of  von  Biilow  (1900- 
09).  The  elections  of  1903,  indeed,  reduced  the  bloc  to  a  majority 
of  one  ;  but  by  being  able  to  count  on  the  support  of  the  National 
Liberals,  and  by  astutely  playing  off  the  opposing  elements,  von 
Biilow  was  still  able  to  get  what  he  wanted.  The  elections  of 
January,  1907,  brought  on  by  a  dissolution  of  the  Reichstag 
after  the  refusal  of  that  body  to  vote  the  government's  colonial 
estimates,  drew  interest  mainly  from  the  continued  show  of 
strength  by  the  Center  and  the  falling  off  of  the  Social  Democratic 
quota.  While  hardly  in  a  position  to  get  on  without  Clerical 
support,  the  government  had,  by  1907,  grown  tired  of  the  hard 
bargains  which  the  party  drove  for  the  votes  that  it  commanded, 
and  would  have  been  willing  to  see  the  Qeni^iA  power  reduced. 
Not  only,  however,  did  the  party  not  lo^ej^Swts  by  this  contest ; 
it  gained  two.     On  the  other  hand,  there  was  compensation  for 

1  German  party  history  during  the  period  1871-94  is  sketched  in  Lowell,  Govern- 
ments and  Parties,  II,  Chap.  vii.  Systematic  party  histories  include  C.  Grotewald, 
Die  Parteicn  des  deutschen  Reichstags:  Band  I,  Der  Politik  des  deutschen  Reiches  in 
Einzeldarstellungen  (Leipzig,  1908) ;  O.  Stillich,  Die  politischcn  Partcien  in  Dcutsch- 
land;  Band  I,  Die  Konservativen  (Leipzig,  1908),  Band  II,  Der  Liberal ismus  (Leip- 
zig, 191 1) ;  and  F.  Wegener,  Die  deutschkonservative  Partei  und  Hire  Aufgaben  fiir 
die  Gegenwart  (Berlin,  1908).  The  rise  of  the  Center  is  well  described  in  L.  Hahn, 
Geschichte  des  Kulturkampfes  (Berlin,  1881) ;  and  a  valuable  study  is  L.  Goetze, 
Das  Zcnlntm,  cine  Konfessionelle  Partie ;  Bcitrage  zur  seiner  Geschichte  (Bonn  ,  1906). 
The  best  standard  histories  of  the  German  Social  Democracy  are  F.  Mehring,  Ge- 
schichte der  dcutschen  Sozialdemokratie,  2  vols.  (Stuttgart,  1897-98),  and  E.  Milhaud, 
La  democratic  socialists  allemande  (Paris,  1903).  See  also  C.  Andler,  Origines  dm 
socialismc  d'etat  en  Allemagne  (Paris,  1906) ;  E.  Kirkup,  History  of  Socialism 
(London,  1906) ;  W.  Sombart,  Socialism  and  the  Social  Movement  (trans,  from  the 
6th  German  ed.  by  M.  Epstein  (New  York,  1909) ;  R.  T.  Ely,  French  and  German 
Socialism  in  Modern  Times  (New  York,  1883);  J.  Spargo,  Karl  Marx,  his  Life  and 
Work  (New  York,  1910) ;  W.  H.  Dawson,  Bismarck  and  State  Socialism  (London, 
1891) ;  ibid.,  German  Socialism  and  Ferdinand  Lassalle  (London,  1899) ;  A.  Bebel, 
Aus  meinem  Leben,  3  vols.  (1910-14),  in  abridged  English  trans.,  My  Life  (Chicago, 
1912).  F.  Salomon,  Die  deutschen  Partei  programme,  2  vols.  (Berlin,  191 2),  contains 
the  platforms  of  German  parties  from  1845  to  191 2.  There  is  a  short  account  in 
Ogg,  Economic  Development  of  Modern  Europe,  Chap,  xxii  (see  bibliography,  pp. 
532-534).  Two  useful  articles  are:  M.  Caudel,  "Les  elections  allemandes  du  16 
juin,  1898,  et  le  nouveau  Reichstag,"  in  Ann.  de  V  Ecolc  Libre,  des  Set.  Polit.,  Nov., 
1898,  and  J.  Hahn,  "Une  election  au  Reichstag  allemand,"  in  Ann.  des  Sci.  Polit., 
Nov.,  1903. 


(h)Q 


GOVERNMEN  rS  O]     El  ROPE 


the  governmenl  in  the  fact  that  the  Social  Democrats  fell  hack, 
liny  polled  3,250,000  votes,  as  compared  with  .^008,000  in  190,^ ; 
but  on  account  of  the  antiquated  distribution  of  Beats,  the  ab- 
normal vote  polled  by  other  parties,  and  the  unusual  cooperation 
»f  the  party  groups  opposed  to  the  So<  ial  I  democrats,  their  repre- 
sentation in  the  Rei<  h  tag  was  cut  from  79  to  43.1 

The  period  covered  by  the  life  of  hstag  elected  in  1907 

drew  its  political  importance  chiefly  from  a  prolonged  struggle 
for  the  establishment  of  parliamentary  government  -  a  struggle 
which  had  its  beginning,  indee  deadlock  that  led  to  the 

dissolution  of  1906,  which  reached  its  climax  in  the  fiscal  debates 
of  1908-09,2  and  which  dur  tent  years  gradually  sub- 

side 1.  leaving,  it  must  be  added,  both  the  status  of  parties  and 
the  constitutional  order  of  the  Empire  very  much  as  they  were 
at  the  beginning.  Somewhat  before  the  dissolution  of  1906, 
the  Conservative-Center  bloc  practically  broke  up,  and  for  a 
short  time  the  government  sought  to  work  with  a  combina- 
tion, commonly  known  as  the  "  Billow  bloc"  of  the  Conser- 
vatives and  the  Liberals.  This  grouping,  however,  was  funda- 
mentally unnatural,  and  in  the  course  of  the  conflict  over  the 
government's  proposed  new  taxes  in  1908,  the  old  alignment 
was  revived.  /  ' 

The  Reichstag  of  1907  was  dissolved  at  the  close  of  its  five- 


1  The  number  of  votes  cast  was   10.S57.000,  of  which  government  candidates 
received  4.062.000.  and  opposition  candidates  5^05,000.     'I  th  of  the  va- 

rious elenient>  in  the  Reichstag  after  the  elections  of  1903  and  1907  was  as  follows: 


1903 

1907 

Seats 

(iUNED 

Seats 
Lost 

Conservatives 

Free  Conservatives 

National  Liberals 

Social  Democrats 

Radicals 

102 

53 

22 

5i 
79 
4^ 
22 
16 
10 
6 
10 

.5 
1 
0 

104 

58 

22 

56 

43 

50 

30 

20 

13 

7 

7 

1 

1 

7 

2 

5 
0 

5 
0 
8 
8 
4 
3 
1 
0 
0 
0 
7 

0 
0 
0 
0 
36 
0 

Antisemites  and  Economic  Union    .     . 



Libera]  Union       

Volkspartei  (Democrats  of  South 
Alsatians 

0 
0 
0 
0 
3 

Guelfs  or  Hanoverians 

Danes 

4 
0 

0 

.       Total 

3<  >7 

43 

43 

Sue  p. 


PARTY  ALIGNMENTS  TO   1914  691 

year  period,  and  in  January,  191 2,  a  new  chamber  was  elected, 
the  thirteenth  since  the  creation  of  the  Empire.  The  contest 
was  one  of  measures  rather  than  of  men,  but  it  aroused  extraor- 
dinary public  interest.  Broadly,  the  line  was  drawn  between 
the  government  and  the  parties  of  the  bloc,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  popular  parties,  especially  the  National  Liberals,  the 
Radicals,  and  the  Social  Democrats,  on  the  other ;  and  the  issues 
were  supplied  by  the  spirit,  purposes,  and  methods  of  Chancellor 
von  Bethmann-Hollweg  and  his  Conservative-Clerical  allies. 
There  was  widespread  complaint  of  the  alleged  reactionism  of  the 
government  parties.  They  were  held  responsible  for  the  fiscal 
reforms  finally  carried  out  in  1909,  which  imposed  serious  bur- 
dens on  industry  and  commerce,  while  sparing  land  and  invested 
capital ;  they  were  charged  with  re-establishing  the  yoke  of  the 
Catholic  Center  upon  the  Lutheran  majority;  and  they  were 
reproached  for  having  failed  to  redeem  their  promise  to  liberalize 
the  antiquated  franchise  arrangements  of  Prussia.  The  Conserva- 
tives, in  particular,  were  attacked  on  the  ground  of  their  monopoly 
of  patronage  and  of  power.  On  the  whole,  however,  the  most 
important  issue  was  the  tariff.  Discontent  flowing  from  the 
high  cost  of  living  was  general,  and  for  a  year  the  government  had 
been  besought  by  municipalities,  workingmen's  organizations, 
and  political  societies  to  take  steps  to  reduce  the  duties  on  im- 
ported foodstuffs.  The  demand  was  in  vain,  and  the  country 
was  given  to  understand  by  the  Chancellor  that  the  government, 
under  Conservative-Agrarian  mastery,  would  stand  or  fall  with 
"  protection  for  the  nation's  work  "  as  its  battle-cry.  Upon 
this  question  the  National  Liberals,  being  protectionist  by  in- 
clination, stood  with  the  government;  but  the  Radicals,  the 
Social  Democrats,  and  some  of  the  minor  groups  assumed  an 
attitude  of  clear-cut  opposition. 

The  total  number  of  candidates  in  the  397  districts  was  1428. 
The  Social  Democrats  —  although  only  they  —  had  a  candidate 
in  every  constituency ;  the  National  Liberals  had  candidates  in 
200  constituencies,  the  Center  in  183,  the  Radicals  in  175,  and  the 
Conservatives  in  132.  A  second  ballot  was  necessary  in  191 
constituencies,  or  nearly  one-half  of  the  whole  number.  The 
results  of  the  election  justified  the  general  expectation  of  observers 
that  the  Social  Democrats  would  realize  enormous  gains.  The 
appeal  of  von  Bethmann-Hollweg  for  a  united  front  against  the 
Socialists  had  no  such  effect  as  did  the  similar  appeal  of  von 
Biilow  in  1907.  The  tactfulness  and  personal  hold  of  the  Chan- 
cellor were  inferior  to  that  of  his  predecessor,  and  the  masses 


692 


GOVERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 


iroused  in  [912  as  they  were  not  upon  the. earlier  occasion. 
The  results  were  .1-  follows : 


Center 

( lonservatives 

Free  Conservatives 

S<x  ial  I  democrats 

National  Liberals 

Radicals 

Poles 

Antisemites  and  Economic  Union  . 

( liR-lfs  or  Hanoverians 

Alsatians,  Danes,  and  Independents 

Total 


Seai 


103 

58 

25 

53 
5i 
49 
20 
20 
1 
16 


397 


Won  at 

OF    1912 


wo 

45 

'3 
1 10 

44 
4' 
18 
1 1 

5 
20 


397 


Two  of  the  three  parties  of  the  Left,  i.e.,  the  National  Liberals 
and  the  Radicals,  suffered  substantial  losses,  but  the  victory  of 
the  Social  Democrats  was  so  sweeping  that  the  Left  as  a  whole 
realized  a  net  gain  of  forty-two  seats.1  On  the  other  hand,  the 
parties  of  the  bloc  lost  heavily  —  in  the  aggregate,  thirty-eight 
seats.  The  number  of  votes  cast  for  candidates  of  the  bloc 
was  approximately  4,500,000;  that  for  candidates  of  the  Left, 
approximately  7,500,000.-  In  Berlin,  five  of  whose  six  constitu- 
encies were  already  represented  by  Social  Democrats,  a  mighty 
effort  was  made  to  carry  the  "Kaiser  district,"  which  contained 
the  Kaiserhof,  or  Imperial  residence,  and  the  seat  of  the  gov- 
ernment itself.  The  attempt  failed,  but  it  was  only  at  the  second 
ballot,  and  by  the  slender  margin  of  seven  votes,  that  the  Socialist 
candidate  was  defeated  by  his  Radical  opponent.  As  has  been 
pointed  out,  the  parties  of  the  Left  were  entirely  separate,  and 
they  were  by  no  means  always  able  to  act  together  on  a  public 
question.  The  ideal  voiced  by  Friedrich  Xaumann,  "  from  Bas 
sermann  to  Bebel,"  meaning  that  the  National  Liberals  under 
the  leadership  of  Bassermann  should,  through  the  medium  of  the 
Radicals,  amalgamate  for  political  purposes  with  the  Social 
Democrats  under  Bebel,  was  never  realized.  None  the  less  there 
was  community  of  interest  and  policy,. and  the  elections  of  191 2 

1  Many  of  the  socialist  victories  were,  of  course,  at  the  expense  of  the  National 
Liberals  and  Radicals. 

2  The  number  of  electors  inscribed  on  the  lists  was  14,236,722.  The  number  who 
actually  voted  was  12,188,337.  The  exact  vote  was:  Social  Democrats,  4,238,919; 
National  Liberals,  1,671,207;  Radicals,  1,556,549;  Center,  2,012,990;  Conserva- 
tives, 1 . 1  49,916. 


PARTY   ALIGNMENTS  TO   19 14  693 

made  it  possible  for  the  first  time  for  a  combination  of  the  three 
groups  and  their  allies  to  outweigh  decisively  any  combination 
which  the  parties  of  the  bloc  and  their  allies  could  oppose.  Before 
the  elections  there  was  a  clear  government  majority  of  eighty- 
nine  ;  after  them,  an  opposition  majority  of,  at  the  least,  four- 
teen. When,  in  February,  191 2,  the  new  Reichstag  was  con- 
vened dexterous  "  log-rolling  "  was  required  on  the  part  of  the 
Conservative-Clerical  bloc  to  prevent  the  election  of  Bebel  himself 
to  the  presidency  of  the  chamber.  As  it  was,  a  socialist  was 
chosen  first  vice-president.  The  enormous  popular  vote  rolled 
up  by  the  socialists  is  to  be  accounted  for  not  alone  by  the  fact 
that  the  party  had  become  the  recognized  channel  for  the  expres- 
sion of  working-class  discontent,  but  also  by  the  fact  that  great 
numbers  of  men  of  the  middle  class  voted  with  it  as  the  most 
effective  way  of  protesting  against  autocracy  and  militarism.1 

Parties  on  the  Eve  of  the  Great  War.  —  Without  pursuing 
farther  the  intricate  subject  of  party  history,  something  may  be 
said  about  the  composition  and  character  of  parties  in  the  years 
immediately  preceding  the  Great  War,  and  especially  about  the 
great  organization  which  went  under  the  name  of  the  Social 
Democracy.  The  major  parties  were  five  in  number ;  Conserva- 
tive, Center,  National  Liberal,  Radical,  and  Socialist.  As  has 
been  explained,  the  Conservative  party  found  its  leadership 
and  main  strength  among  the  great  landholders  of  eastern  and 
northeastern  Prussia ;  its  popular  support  came  chiefly  from  agri- 
cultural wage-earners  of  these  same  sections  and  from  public 
employees,  including  the  railway  operatives.  The  gravest  abuse 
in  connection  with  the  conduct  of  campaigns  and  elections  was 
the  pressure  which  the  government  brought  to  bear  upon  the 
enormous  official  population  to  vote  Conservative,  or,  in  districts 
where  there  was  no  Conservative  candidate,  Centrist.  This 
pressure  was  applied  through  the  local  bureaucratic  organs, 
principally  the  Landrath  of  the  Kreis,2  who  usually  was  a  youthful 
official  of  noble  origin,  related  to  some  important  landed  family, 
and  a  rigid  Conservative.     It  has  been  estimated  that  official 

1  On  the  elections  of  1907  see  G.  Isambert,  "Le  parti  du  centre  en  Allemagne  et 
les  elections  de  janvier-fevrier,  1907,"  in  Ann.  des  Sci.  Polit.,  Mar.,  1907.  On  those 
of  1912  see  G.  Blondel,  "Les  elections  au  Reichstag  et  la  situation  nouvelle  des 
partis,"  in  Le  Correspondent,  Jan.  25,,  191 2  ;  J.  W.  Jenks,  "The  German  Elections," 
in  Rev.  of  Revs.,  Jan.,  191 2;  A.  Quist,  "Les  elections  du  Reichstag  allemand,"  in 
Rev.  Socialiste,  Feb.  15,  1912;  and  W.  Martin,  "La  crise  constitutionnelle  et  poli- 
tique en  Allemagne,"  in  Rev.  Polit.  et  Pari.,  Aug.  10,  191 2.  An  excellent  survey  of 
the  period  1906-11  is  P.  Matter,  "D'un  Reichstag  a  l'autre,"  in  Rev.  des  Sci. 
Polit.,  July-Aug.,  191 1. 

2  See  p.  672. 


GOVERNMEN  rs  OF    EUROPE 

influence  controlled  a  million  votes  at  every  national  election, 
Numerically  small,  the  Conservative  party  steadily  maintained  its 
position  as  the  most  important  of  all;  for  it  stood  closest  to  the 
Prussian  government,  and  it  furnished  the  mm  who  made  i 
Imperial  government  what  it  was.  Founded  on  the  doctrine  of 
authority  as  opposed  to  liberty,  dedicated  to  the  defense  of  the 
prerogatives  of  the  king-emperor  and  the  privileges  of  the  nobility, 
it  resolutely  resisted  every  proposal  for  reform  in  the  political 
It  favored  a  high  protective  tariff  on  agricultural  prod- 
ucts, a  larger  navy,  increased  expenditure  on  the  army,  and 
colonial  expansion;  and  for  years  an  influential  "  Pan-German  " 
element  urged  many  of  the  measures  for  German  aggrandizement 
abroad  which  eventually  brought  the  Imperial  regime  to  grief. 
Earlier  opposition  to  Bismarck's  policy  of  unification  disappeared 
when  the  advantages  of  Imperial  tariff  legislation  began  to  be 
clearly  perceived. 

The  Center  was  the  party  of  Catholicism.  Founded  upon  an 
essentially  religious  basis,  it  always  contained  both  aristocratic 
and  popular  elements,  and  was  perhaps  more  representative  of 
all  classes  of  people  in  the  Empire  than  any  other  party.  Its 
leaders  were  largely  drawn  from  the  Catholic  nobility  of  Silesia 
and  Bavaria,  and  it  found  its  chief  support  among  the  Catholic 
peasants  of  Bavaria  and  the  Catholic  workingmen  of  the  Rhine 
provinces.1  Geographically,  its  strength  lay  principally,  there- 
fore, in  the  south  and  southwest.  The  party  had  no  clear-cut 
program.  Its  original  purpose  was  largely  attained  when  Bis- 
marck was  led  to  abandon  his  conflict  with  the  Catholic  Church  ; 
although  the  party  was  ever  alert  to  defend  Catholic  interests, 
from  whatever  direction  menaced.  It  actively  combated  so- 
cialism ;  and,  with  a  view  to  winning  the  laboring  classes  from 
that  creed,  it,  like  the  Catholic  Action  Liberale  in  France,  steadily 
advocated  social  reform.  Its  liberalism,  however,  was  guarded ; 
and  while  the  name  which  it  bore,  "  Center,"  denotes  a  middle 
position  between  the  conservative  Right  and  the  radical  Left, 
the  party  commonly  acted  with  the  Conservatives,  partly  be- 
cause of  its  own  innate  conservatism,  partly  because  the  interests 
of  its  membership  wrere  also  to  a  considerable  extent  agricultural. 
A  French  observer  said  of  the  party  in  1913  :  "  It  appears  to-day 
much  more  in  the  light  of  a  group  of  clever  opportunists,  who 
show  a  rare  genius  for  defending  the  temporal  interests  of  Cathol- 
icism, rather  than  a  really  idealistic  party  which  is  systematically 

!The  Empire  contained  in  [911  twenty-four  million  Catholics,  as  against  forty 
million  Lutherans  and  Kvani,relicals. 


PARTY  ALIGNMENTS  TO   19 14  695 

endeavoring  to  find  a  solution  of  the  great  international,  political, 
and  social  problems  of  the  moment." 1 

Just  as  Conservatism  formed  the  party  of  the  nobility  and  of 
agriculture,  the  Center  the  party  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and 
Social  Democracy  the  party  of  the  industrial  masses,  National 
Liberalism  formed  the  party  of  the  middle  classes,  and  especially 
of  the  industrial  leaders  and  managers.  This  party  found  its 
strength  therefore  principally  in  the  industrial  districts  of  the 
center  and  west.  Historically,  it  was  the  party  of  political  re- 
form ;  and  in  later  years  it  put  much  emphasis  on  the  abolition 
of  three-class  voting,  the  reapportionment  of  seats  in  the  Reichs- 
tag, the  restriction  of  clerical  influence  in  education  and  govern- 
ment, and  the  suppression  of  government  interference  with  the 
free  exercise  of  the  suffrage  by  Imperial  and  state  employees. 
However,  the  party  gave  its  best  effort  to  the  defense  of  its 
economic  interests,  and  in  this  connection  it  particularly  demand- 
ed the  revision  of  the  tariff  downwards  on  agricultural  products, 
although  not,  of  course,  on  manufactured  goods.  It  also  sup- 
ported armaments,  colonial  expansion,  and  a  vigorous,  if  not 
indeed  an  aggressive,  foreign  policy ;  and  the  lords  of  industry 
who  led  the  party  bitterly  resented  the  monopoly  of  civil  offices 
and  of  command  in  the  army  and  navy  which  the  landed  aristo- 
crats of  the  Conservative  groups  enjoyed. 

The  Radicals,  or  Progressives,  were  also  a  middle-class,  and 
largely  industrial,  party.  Except  on  one  matter,  they  differed 
from  the  National  Liberals  rather  in  degree  than  in  principle. 
That  matter  was  the  tariff.  They  would  have  had  the  Empire 
abolish  all  protective  duties  —  in  other  words,  adopt  the  tariff 
policy  of  its  great  industrial  rival,  England.  Like  the  National 
Liberals,  they  advocated  reapportionment  of  seats,  equal  voting, 
and  the  suppression  of  clericalism;  and  they  went  farther  by 
demanding  a  complete  parliamentary  system  of  government, 
and  also  the  subordination  of  the  military  to  the  civil  power. 
The  party  was  not  the  tool  of  the  great  industries  in  any  such 
degree  as  was  the  National  Liberal  organization ;  yet  it  was  not 
a  party  of  the  masses  in  the  sense  in  which  that  phrase  can  be 
applied  to  the  Social  Democracy.2 

1  H.  Lichtenberger,  Germany  and  its  Evolution  in  Modern  Times  (New  York, 
1913),  185.      See  C.  Bachem,  Politik  und  Geschichte  der  Zenlrumspartei  (Cologne, 

I9I8)> 

2  Brief  accounts  of  the  parties  in  the  years  immediately  preceding  the  war  are 
Kriiger,  Government  and  Polities  of  the  German  Empire,  Chap,  xvii;  Lichtenberger, 
Germany  and  its  Evolution  in  Modern  Times,  Bk.  II,  Chap,  v ;  Baron  Beyens,  Ger- 
many before  the  War,  trans,  by  P.  V.  Cohn  (London,  1916),  Chap,  iv;   and  B.  von 


696  <.<>\  ERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

The  Social  Democrats  :  Organization  and  Activities.  The 
&rs1  fad  to  be  observed  about  the  Social  Democracy  in  the  years 
immediately  preceding  the  Greal  War  is  that  the  party,  as  such, 
was  very  much  smaller  than  might  be  inferred  from  the  iiumber  of 
votes  polled  by  its  candidates.  Stri(  tly,  the  membership  included 
only  those  persons  who  paid  parly  dues  and  obligated  themselves 
to  perform  such  services  as  the  party  demanded  of  them.  In 
only  six  electoral  districts  in  the  Empire  in  1909  did  the  member- 
ship reach  thirty  per  cent  of  the  So<  i;d  Democratic  vote  1 
and  the  total  membership  of  the  party  March  31.  1914,  was  but 
[,085,905,  including  174,754  women  and  perhaps  an  equal  num- 
ber of  men  under  the  voting  age.  The  party's  huge  and  rapidly 
growing  popular  vote  arose  largely  from  the  fact  that  great  num- 
bers of  middle-class  Germans  who  cared  little  or  nothing  about 
the  purely  economic  dogmas  or  the  ultimate  goal  of  socialism 
habitually  supported  Social  Democratic  candidates  for  the  Reichs- 
tag as  the  most  obvious  and  effective  mode  of  rebuking  an 
illiberal  and  unrepresentative  government. 

In  organization  the  party  was  without  a  peer  in  continental 
Europe.  Its  supreme  governing  body  was  a  congress  composed  of 
six  delegates  from  each  electoral  district  of  the  Empire,  the  So- 
cialist members  of  the  Reichstag,  and  the  members  of  the  party's 
executive  committee.  This  congress  met  annually  in  some  im- 
portant city  to  hear  reportsof  committees,  to  discuss  party  policies, 
to  enforce  party  discipline,  and  to  take  action  upon  matters  re- 
ferred to  it  by  local  party  organizations  or  by  individual  members. 
There  was  the  utmost  freedom  of  discussion,  but  the  decisions 
reached  were  expected  to  be  accepted  by  all  members  without 
equivocation  or  complaint.  Between  sessions  the  administrative 
work  of  the  party  was  carried  on  by  an  executive  committee  of 
seven  members,  chosen  by  the  congress  and  assisted  by  a  staff  of 
itinerant  secretaries.  Locally,  the  membership  was  organized 
in  branches,  which  held  meetings,  instructed  the  youth  in  the 
tenets  of  the  party,  and  in  every  possible  way  advanced  the  party's 
interests  in  the  community.  The  activities  of  the  party  were 
varied  and  untiring.  In  1910  over  fourteen  thousand  meetings 
were  held  and  over  thirty-three  million  circulars  and  almost  three 
million  pamphlets  were  distributed.  At  campaign  lime  voters 
■■Mi  interviewed  in  person,  and  no  workingman  escaped  the 
propagandists'  attention.     The  party  press  included  sevent) 

Biilow,   Imperial  Germany,    163-247.     For  references  on   (In-  Social   Democrats 
702.     A.   Marvaud,  "La  presse  politique  allemande,"  in  Quest.  Dipt,  cl 
Colon.,  Mar.  16  and  Apr.  1,  1910,  will  be  found  of  interest. 


PARTY  ALIGNMENTS  TO   19 14  697 

five  daily  newspapers,  with  a  circulation  of  1,100,000  copies; 
Vorwarts,  the  central  organ,  with  a  daily  circulation  of  139,000; 
the  weekly  Die  Neue  Zeit,  with  a  circulation  of  475,000;  the 
humorous  Walire  Jacob,  with  250,000  weekly ;  and  a  propagand- 
ist paper  for  women,  circulating  37,000  copies  fortnightly.  The 
party  had  two  hundred  central  circulating  libraries  and  three 
hundred  and  seventy-seven  branches. 

The  Social  Democrats :  Doctrines  and  Policies.  —  In  the 
main,  this  organization  was  given  the  party  by  the  first  annual 
congress  convened  after  the  discontinuance  of  the  government's 
repressive  policy,  that  held  at  Halle  in  1890.  The  same  gather- 
ing worked  over,  also,  the  party's  principles  and  set  on  foot  a 
movement  for  the  revision  of  the  program  promulgated  at  Gotha 
fifteen  years  earlier.  The  outcome  was  the  adoption  by  the  next 
congress,  at  Erfurt  in  1891,  of  a  freshly  drawn  program,  mainly 
Marxist  in  content  and  spirit,  and  with  all  traces  of  anarchistic 
influence  eliminated ;  and  with  only  slight  modifications  the  Er- 
furt Program  remained  in  1914  the  formal  statement  of  the 
party's  creed.1  From  time  to  time,  as  new  issues  arose,  it  re- 
quired interpretation  or  amplification  by  pronouncements  of  the 
annual  congress.  But  from  the  first  it  contained  the  funda- 
mentals. 

The  essential  objects  of  the  Social  Democracy  are  set  forth  in 
the  instrument  as  follows  :  "  Nothing  but  the  conversion  of  capi- 
talistic private  ownership  of  the  means  of  production  —  the 
earth  and  its  fruits,  mines  and  quarries,  raw  material,  tools 
and  machines,  means  of  exchange  —  into  social  ownership, 
and  the  substitution  of  socialist  production,  carried  on  by  and 
for  society  in  the  place  of  the  present  production  of  commodi- 
ties of  exchange,  can  effect  such  a  revolution  that,  instead  of  the 
large  industries  and  the  steadily  growing  capacities  of  common 
production  being,  as  hitherto,  a  source  of  misery  and  oppression 
to  the  classes  whom  they  have  despoiled,  they  may  become  a 
source  of  the  highest  well-being  and  of  perfect  harmony.  This 
social  transformation  means  the  emancipation,  not  merely  of  the 
proletariat,  but  of  the  entire  human  race  which  suffers  under 
the  present  conditions.  But  it  can  only  be  the  work  of  the  labor- 
ing class,  because  all  other  classes,  in  spite  of  their  mutual  con- 
flicting interests,  stand  on  the  ground  of  private  property  in  the 

1  K.  Kautsky,  Das  Erfurter  Programm  (8th  ed.,  Stuttgart,  1907).  An  English 
version  is  printed  in  S.  P.  Orth,  Socialism  and  Democracy  in  Europe  (New  York, 
1913),  298-301.  Compare  the  Election  Address  of  the  Social  Democrats  at  the 
elections  of  191 2,  ibid.,  303-307. 


GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

means  of  production,  and  have  as  their  common  aim  the  main- 
tenance of  the  bases  of  the  existing  society.  The  struggle  of  the 
working  class  against  capitalistic  exploitation  Is  of  necessity  a 
political  struggle.  The  working  class  cannol  i  onducl  its  economic 
struggle,  and  cannol  develop  its  economic  organization,  with- 
out political  rights.  .  .  .  To  shape  this  struggle  of  the  working 
class  into  a  conscious  and  united  one,  and  to  point  out  to  it  its 
inevitable  goal,  this  Is  the  task  of  the  Social  Democratic  party. 

.  .  The  German  Social  Democrats  are  not,  therefore,  fighting 
for  new  class  privileges  and  rights,  but  for  the  abolition  of  cl 
government  and  even  of  classes  themselves,  and  for  universal 
equality  in  rights  and  duties,  without  distinction  of  sex  or  rank. 
Holding  these  views,  they  are  fighting  not  merely  against  the 
exploitation  and  oppression  of  the  wage-earners  in  the  existing 
social  order,  but  against  every  kind  of  exploitation  and  op- 
pression, whether  directed  against  class,  party,  sex,  or  rati." 

The  more  specific  demands  of  the  party,  as  enumerated  in 
the  Program,  may  be  summarized  as  follows : 

i.  Universal,  equal,  and  direct  suffrage  by  ballot  in  all  elec- 
tions for  all  subjects  of  the  Empire  over  twenty  years  of  age, 
without  distinction  of  sex;  proportional  representation;  bien- 
nial elections  to  the  Reichstag;   payment  of  representatives. 

2.  Direct  legislation  by  the  people  through  the  use  of  the 
right  of-  initiative  and  of  veto ;  self-government  by  the  people 
in  Empire,  state,  province,  and  commune ;  an  annual  vote  of 
taxes. 

3.  Universal  military  training;  substitution  of  a  militia 
for  a  standing  army ;  decision  of  questions  of  peace  and  war  by 
the  Reichstag;  settlement  of  all  international  disputes  by 
arbitration. 

4.  Abolition  of  all  laws  restricting  freedom  of  speech  and  the 
right  of  public  assembly. 

5.  Abolition  of  all  laws  that  put  women,  whether  in  a  private 
or  public  capacity,  at  a  disadvantage  in  comparison  with  men. 

6.  Declaration  that  religion  is  a  private  matter;  discon- 
tinuance of  all  expenditure  of  public  funds  for  ecclesiastical  pur- 
poses. 

7.  Secularization  of  education;  compulsory  attendance  at 
public  schools;  free  education.  free  supply  of  educational  ap- 
paratus, and  free  maintenance  of  children  in  schools  and  of  such 
students  in  higher  institutions  as  prove  themselves  fitted  for 
higher  education. 

8.  Free  administration  of  the  law  by  judges  elected  by  the 


PARTY  ALIGNMENTS  TO    19 14  699 

people ;    compensation  to  persons  unjustly  accused,  imprisoned, 
or  condemned ;   abolition  of  capital  punishment. 

9.    Free   medical    treatment,   including   medicine,   and    free 
burial. 

10.  Income,  property,  and  inheritance  taxes  to  meet  all 
public  expenses  that  are  to  be  met  by  taxation;  abolition  of 
all  indirect  taxation,  customs  duties,  and  other  measures 
which  sacrifice  the  interests  of  the  people  at  large  to  those  of  a 
small  minority. 

n.  A  national  and  international  system  of  protection  of  labor 
on  the  basis  of  a  working  day  of  not  more  than  eight  hours,  the 
prohibition  of  the  employment  of  children  under  fourteen  years 
of  age,  and  the  prohibition  of  night  work,  except  where  absolutely 
necessary,  supervision  of  all  industrial  establishments  and  regu- 
lation of  the  conditions  of  labor  by  government  departments 
and  bureaus ;  confirmation  of  the  rights  of  laboring  men  to  form 
organizations. 

Internal  Party  Differences  :  Revisionism.  —  The  Program, 
it  will  be  observed,  consisted  of  two  parts  —  first,  a  re-statement 
of  Marxian  economics  and,  second,  an  enumeration  of  specific 
and  practical  objects  to  be  attained,  not  in  all  instances  as  ends 
within  themselves,  but  as  contributions  toward  the  realization 
of  the  ultimate  ideal.  Much  stress  was  placed  upon  political 
action  ;  and  if  any  one  entertained  a  doubt  that  German  socialism 
proposed  to  remain  in  politics,  the  uncertainty  must  have  been 
dispelled  by  the  promulgation  of  this  platform.  From  1891  — 
and  especially  after  1 900  —  the  main  issue  in  the  shaping  of 
socialist  policy  in  Germany  was  the  extent  to  which  theoretic 
and  remote  aims  should  be  subordinated  to  practical  and  im- 
mediate ends.  There  was  at  all  times  an  element  which  had  its 
eyes  fixed  on  the  ultimate  socialistic  goal.  To  this  element  the 
things  that  happened  until  that  goal  should  be  attained  did  not 
greatly  matter.  The  supreme  danger,  it  felt,  was  that  men  would 
set  out  to  be  socialists  and  end  by  being  mere  social  reformers. 
This  element  clung  to  the  old  articles  of  faith  —  the  abolition  of 
class  government  and  of  classes  themselves,  the  suppression  of 
every  kind  of  exploitation  of  labor  and  oppression  of  men,  the 
overthrow  of  capitalism  and  of  everything  for  which  it  stands, 
and  the  inauguration  of  an  economic  system  under  which  the 
production  and  distribution  of  goods  should  be  controlled  ex- 
clusively by  the  state. 

A  quarter  of  a  century  ago,  however,  an  element  appeared  in 
the  party  which  viewed  matters  differently.     Shortly  after  the 


7oo  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

general  election  of  [897,  in  which  the  Social  Democrats  suffered 
serious   reverses,    Edward    Bernstein,    the   literary   executor  of 

Engels,  published  in  Die  Neue  /.fit  a  series  of  articles,  under  the 
title  Probleme  des  Sozialismus,  renouncing  revolution  and  urging 
that  "  the  movement  is  everything,  the  goal  is  nothing."  These 
articles  gave  forceful  expression  to  the  thought  of  a  growing  sec- 
tion of  the  party,  and  at  the  congresses  of  1898  and  1890  the 
proposals  which  they  contained  were  made  the  principal  subjects 
of  debate.  The  question  was  whether  the  party  should  recast 
its  platform  and  eliminate  the  doc  trine  of  cataclysmic  revolu- 
tionary expropriation  which  it  had  taken  over  from  Marx,  even 
as  at  an  earlier  time  it  had  ejected  the  last  trace  of  anarchism, 
or  should  stand  inflexibly  upon  the  ground  which  it  hitherto 
had  occupied.  Bernstein  led  the  "  revisionists,"  Karl  Kautsky, 
editor  of  Die  Neue  Zeit,  led  the  old-line  Marxists.  Bcbel,  who 
since  the  death  of  Wilhelm  Liebknecht  in  1900,  had  been  the 
party's  principal  leader,  inclined  against  the  revisionists,  but  he 
directed  his  efforts  mainly  to  averting  an  open  breach  in  the  party 
ranks.  Bernstein  wrote  a  book  explaining  and  defending  the 
revisionist  position ;   Kautsky  wrote  one  in  sharp  reply.1 

Year  after  year  the  question  was  agitated,  in  the  annual  con- 
gresses and  in  the  party  press.  At  the  Liibeck  congress  of  1901 
revisionism  was  formally  condemned  as  a  heresy,  and  for  a  time 
it  seemed  that  its  program  would  be  permanently  repudiated. 
The  loss  of  one  half  of  the  party's  seats  in  the  Reichstag  at  the 
elections  of  1907  had,  however,  a  chastening  effect,  and  there- 
after the  scale  turned  in  favor  of  the  new  policy.  No  formal 
modification  of  the  Erfurt  Program  took  place.  But  there  was 
a  decided  tendency  to  speak  softly  of  theoretic  revolutionism 
and  to  direct  effort  rather  to  securing  the  ends  of  Social  Democ- 
racy by  a  scries  of  partial,  practical  reforms.  By  1914  some  five 
sections  were  clearly  discernible  in  the  party:  (1)  the  Extrem- 
ists —  represented  in  the  Reichstag  by  Karl  Liebknecht,  and 
among  women  by  Rosa  Luxemburg  —  who  still  advocated  class- 
war  and  deprecated  cooperation  with  non-socialist  parties ; 
(2)  the  Left  Center  —  represented  in  the  Reichstag  by  Hugo 
Haase  and  Georg  Lebedour  and  among  writers  by  Karl  Kautsky 
and  Heinrich  Cunow  —  who  also  disapproved  cooperation  with 
non-socialist    bodies,    but    believed    in    parliamentary    action ; 

1  Bernstein's  volume,  which  was  written  in  England,  is  Dir  Voraussetzung  des 
Sozialismus  und  die  Aujgabni  der  Sozialdemokraiie  [Stuttgart,  iSqo).  It  has  been 
published,  in  translation  by  E.  C.  Harvey,  under  the  title  Evolutionary  Socialism; 
a  Critii  ism  and  an  Affirmation  'London,  [909).  ECautsky's  volume  is  Bernstein  und 
das  sozialdemokratische  Programm;  eine  Antikriti  -i.  1899J. 


PARTY  ALIGNMENTS  TO   19 14  701 

(3)  the  Right  Center  —  led  by  Philipp  Scheidemann  —  which 
theoretically  held  to  the  traditional  party  program,  yet  in  fact 
strongly  inclined  to  revisionism ;  (4)  the  Revisionists,  led  by 
Bernstein  and  Eduard  David;  and  (5)  the  Imperial  Socialists 
—  represented  by  Wolfgang  Heine  and  Edmund  Fischer  —  who 
supported  the  demand  for  a  large  army,  a  strong  navy,  and  an 
aggressive  colonial  and  commercial  policy.1 

All  in  all,  the  party,  while  nominally  revolutionary,  was  in 
fact  a  very  orderly  organization,  whose  immediate  program  was 
so  moderate  as  to  command  support  among  vast  numbers  of 
people  who  did  not  bear  the  party  label.  The  party  grew  ever 
more  tolerant  and  opportunist.  Instead  of  opposing  reforms 
undertaken  on  the  basis  of  existing  institutions,  as  it  once  did,  in 
the  hope  of  bringing  about  the  establishment  of  a  socialistic  state 
by  a  single  grand  coup,  it  worked  for  such  reforms  as  were  felt 
to  be  attainable  and  contented  itself  with  proclaiming  only  occa- 
sionally, and  even  only  incidentally,  its  ultimate  ideal.  The  state 
as  at  present  constituted  became  a  means  of  removing  evils,  not 
itself  an  evil  to  be  removed.  Perhaps  we  may  say  that  the  party 
was  at  once  reforming  and  revolutionary  —  reforming  in  that  the 
great  majority  of  its  members  definitely  repudiated  violence  and 
forcible  measures  and  advocated  a  positive,  constructive  policy 
of  social  amelioration ;  and  yet  revolutionary,  because,  after  all, 
it  clung  to  its  faith  in  a  radical  transformation  of  society  which 
should  involve  the  end  of  social  classes,  the  displacement  of 
capitalist  production,  and  the  cessation  of  the  exploitation  of  labor 
by  the  economically  powerful.2 

The  Social  Democrats  and  the  Government.  —  The  German 
Social  Democracy  was  by  1914  essentially  political.  In  accord- 
ance with  Lassalle's  dictum,  "  Democracy,  the  universal  ballot, 
is  the  laboring  man's  hope,"  it  made  its  immediate  issue  the  estab- 
lishment of  universal  suffrage  and  the  modernization  in  other 
respects  of  the  electoral  arrangements  of  Empire,  states,  and 
municipalities.  "  Marx,"  wrote  a  foreign  observer  in  1913, 
"  is  a  tradition,  democracy  is  an  issue."  Once  the  party's 
representatives  were  present  in  the  Reichstag  merely  to  make 
the  cause  of  the  workingman  heard,  to  protest,  to  obstruct,  and 
to  embarrass  the  government.  Gradually,  and  not  without 
criticism  from  the  extremists,  they  became  constructive  legis- 

1  E.  Bevan,  German  Social  Democracy  during  the  War  (New  York,  iqiq),  2-3. 

2  Lichtenberger,  Evolution  of  Modem  Germany,  172.  The  earlier  history  of  the 
internal  differences  in  the  party  is  fully  related  in  E.  Milhaud,  La  democratic  so- 
cialist allemandc  (Paris,  1893),  541-572. 


7o2  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

lators.  introducing  bills,  serving  on  committees,  seeking  and 
holding  offices,  and  finally,  after  the  elections  of  1912,  joining 
with  tne  Radicals  in  assuming  virtual  Leadership  of  the  Reichs- 
tag itself.  In  many  of  the  slates,  notably  Bavaria,  Baden, 
and  Wiirttemberg,  they  voted  for  budgets  prepared  by  repre- 
sentatives of  other  parties,  participated  in  court  functions,  and 
worked  hand  in  hand,  in  campaigns  and  in  local  councils  and  diets, 
with  Radical,  and  even  National  Liberal,  organizations. 

So  far  as  the  I\mpire  as  a  whole  and  the  kingdom  of  Prussia 
were  concerned,  the  socialists  advanced  farther  to  meet  the  gov- 
ernment than  the  government  to  meet  the  socialists.  The  belief 
was  still  prevalent  in  official  circles  that  the  Social  Democrats 
were  enemies  of  the  monarchy  and  were  conspiring  its  eventual 
overthrow.  Hence,  socialists  were  rigorously  excluded  from  all 
positions  of  trust  and  honor  at  the  disposal,  directly  or  indirectly, 
of  the  government.  No  socialist  was  ever  tendered  a  ministerial 
or  other  public  office,  and  the  ban  was  extended  to  judicial  offices, 
professorships  in  the  universities,  pastorates  in  the  state  church, 
and  teaching  appointments  in  the  public  schools.  The  tension 
was  less  pronounced  in  the  states  of  the  south  than  in  Prussia, 
but  it  existed  in  some  degree  everywhere.1 

1  In  addition  to  the  references  cited  on  p.  689,  the  reader  may  consult  R.  C.  K. 
Ensor  [ed.],  Modern  Socialism  (2d  ed.,  London,  1907) ;  Y.  G.  Simkhovich.  Marxism 
vs.  Socialism  (New  York,  1(113) ;  Orth,  Socialism  and  Democracy  in  Europe,  Chaps, 
vii-viii;  W.  E.  Walling,  "The  New  Revisionism  in  Germany,"  in  Internal.  Soc. 
Rev.,  Nov.,  iqoq;  J.  E.  Barker,  Modern  Germany;  her  Political  and  Economic 
Problems  (new  ed.,  London,  1912),  Chaps,  xviii-xix;  and  C.  J.  H.  Hayes,  "The 
History  of  German  Socialism  Reconsidered,"  in  Amcr.  Hist.  Rev.,  Oct.,  1917. 


CHAPTER  XXXVIII 

THE  WAR-TIME   MOVEMENT  FOR  POLITICAL  REFORM   AND 
THE  REVOLUTION   OF   1918 

Demand  for  Political  Reconstruction  prior  to   1914.  —  The 

German  governmental  system  as  described  in  preceding  chapters 
was  bolstered  up  by  many  powerful  influences,  but  it  by  no  means 
met  the  approval  of  all  elements  of  the  people.  The  liberalism 
of  1848,  which  looked  toward  manhood  suffrage,  responsible 
ministers,  limited  monarchy,  and  guarantees  of  individual 
liberty,  never  wholly  died  out.  In  their  official  program,  adopted 
at  Erfurt  in  1891,  the  Social  Democrats  called  for  a  long  and 
remarkable  list  of  political  reforms :  universal,  equal,  and  direct 
suffrage  by  ballot  in  all  elections  for  all  subjects  of  the  Empire 
over  twenty  years  of  age,  without  distinction  of  sex  ;  proportional 
representation ;  biennial  elections  to  the  Reichstag ;  an  annual 
vote  of  taxes ;  direct  legislation  by  the  people  by  means  of  the 
initiative  and  the  referendum ;  decision  of  questions  of  peace 
and  war  by  the  Reichstag ;  and  "  self-government  by  the  people 
in  Empire,  state,  province,  and  commune."  Furthermore, 
for  many  years  prior  to  the  Great  War  the  moderate,  middle- 
class  parties  likewise  advocated  the  abolition  of  the  Prussian 
three-class  electoral  system,  periodic  reapportionment  of  seats, 
and  the  establishment  of  ministerial  responsibility  to  the 
Reichstag. 

After  1900  discussion  in  liberal  circles  centered  mainly  around 
two  proposed  reforms :  the  establishment  of  ministerial  re- 
sponsibility, especially  as  applied  to  the  Chancellor,  and  the 
abolition  of  the  Prussian  three-class  system.  The  first  question 
was  brought  unexpectedly  to  the  fore  in  the  autumn  of  1908  by 
the  famous  Daily  Telegraph  incident.  At  a  moment  when  the 
international  situation  was  exceptionally  tense  over  the  Casa- 
blanca episode 1  the  London  Daily  Telegraph  published  an 
account  of  an  interview  in  which  the  Kaiser  declared  that  while 
the  prevailing  sentiment  among  large  sections  of  the  middle  and 

1  Precipitated  by  the  arrest  of  some  German  deserters  from  the  French  Foreign 
Legion  at  Casablanca,  in  Morocco.     Annual  Register  (1908),  298-299. 

703 


704  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

lower  classes  of  his  own  people  was  not  friendly  to  England,  the 
German  government  was  well  disposed  and  had  actively  be 
friended  thai  country  during  the  South  African  war.  The 
interview  was  a  masterpiece  of  indiscretion,  and  it  aroused  a 
storm  of  disapprobation  in  Germany  such  as  the  Emperor  had 
never  before  encountered.  "  A  stranger."  relates  the  American 
ambassador  of  the  time,  "  might  easily  have  inferred  from  the 
tide  of  public  feeling  that  swept  over  the  Empire  that  William  II 
was  about  to  be  deposed.  The  serious  journals  were  loud  in 
their  protests.  The  comic  papers  were  remorseless  in  their 
caricatures.  One  would  have  supposed  that  there  was  no  law 
in  Germany  against  I  esc  majestc."  ' 

At  the  Wilhelmstrasse  it  was  revealed  that  the  manuscript 
of  the  interview  had  been  submitted  before  publication  to  the 
Chancellor,  but  had  been  returned  to  its  author  unread.  For 
this  negligence  Prince  von  Biilow  was  duly  apologetic.  When, 
however,  the  Emperor  refused  to  accept  his  resignation  the 
minister  did  not  refrain  from  throwing  the  final  burden  on  his 
master  by  pledging  that  while  he  remained  Chancellor  such 
personal  interference  in  the  conduct  of  foreign  affairs  would  not 
be  allowed  to  occur  again.  "  The  perception,"  the  Chancellor 
declared  in  the  Reichstag,  "  that  the  publication  of  these  con- 
versations in  England  has  not  had  the  effect  the  Kaiser  wished, 
and  in  our  own  country  has  caused  profound  agitation  and 
painful  regret,  will  .  .  .  lead  the  Kaiser  for  the  future,  in  private 
conversation  also,  to  maintain  the  reserve  that  is  equally  indis- 
pensable in  the  interest  of  a  uniform  policy  and  for  the  authority 
of  the  Crown.  If  it  were  not  so,  I  could  not,  nor  could  my 
successor,  bear  the  responsibility."  Following  this  announce- 
ment, the  Official  Gazette  stated  that  "  His  Majesty,  while  un- 
affected by  public  criticism  which  he  regards  as  exaggerated, 
considers  his  most  honorable  Imperial  task  to  consist  in  securing 
the  stability  of  the  policy  of  the  Empire  while  adhering  to  the 
principle  of  constitutional  responsibility.  The  Kaiser  accord- 
ingly indorses  the  statements  of  the  Imperial  Chancellor  in 
the  Reichstag,  and  assures  Prince  von  Biilow  of  his  continued 
confidence."  Chastened  by  the  protests  of  his  long-suffering 
people,  the  lordly  monarch  thus  promised  to  mend  his  ways, 
when  a  less  conciliatory  policy  might  have  produced  revolu- 
tion. The  popular  victory  —  if  such  it  be  considered  —  was, 
however,  hollow.  The  Reichstag  gained  no  new  power ;  "  con- 
stitutional responsibility  "  continued  to  mean  responsibility 
1  Hill,  Impressions  of  the  Kaiser,  112. 


WAR-TIME  MOVEMENT  FOR  POLITICAL  REFORM    705 

to  the  Emperor  only;  the  Chancellor  was  still  to  be  merely 
the  Emperor's  "  other  self  " ;  the  regime  of  personal  diplomacy 
was  not  ended,  and  the  issues  of  war  and  peace  still  lay  abso- 
lutely in  the  hands  of  the  ill-balanced,  irresponsible  head  of  the 
Prussianized  Empire.1 

The  issue  was  kept  alive  by  a  prolonged  controversy  between 
the  Chancellor  and  the  Reichstag  over  financial  reform.  Von 
Billow  proposed  to  meet  recurring  deficits  by  a  new  inheritance 
tax,  arranged  to  fall  mainly  on  the  landed  and  capitalist  classes. 
Rather  than  approve  the  plan,  the  Conservatives  deserted  their 
newly  acquired  allies,  the  National  Liberals,  and  resumed  work- 
ing relations  with  the  Center ;  and  the  revived  Blue-Black  bloc 
thwarted  the  reform.  The  resignation  of  the  Chancellor  fol- 
lowed ;  but,  as  has  been  pointed  out  elsewhere,  the  act  involved 
no  recognition  of  responsibility  to  the  Reichstag.  Von  Biilow 
retired  partly  because  he  was  unwilling  to  go  on  without  the  tax 
upon  which  he  had  set  his  heart,  but  also  partly,  and  perhaps 
mainly,  because  he  felt  that  his  relations  with  the  Emperor 
could  never  again  be  what  they  had  been  before  the  Daily  Tele- 
graph affair.  During  the  fiscal  controversy  the  principle  of 
ministerial  responsibility  was  strongly  asserted  on  the  floor  of 
the  Reichstag.  But  the  new  Chancellor,  von  Bethmann- 
Hollweg,  promptly  and  fully  repudiated  it.  "A  Chancellor 
dependent  only  upon  the  Emperor  and  the  king  of  Prussia," 
he  declared,  "  is  the  necessary  counterpoise  to  the  freest  of  elec- 
toral laws,  devised  by  Bismarck  on  the  supposition  that  the 
Bundesrath  and  the  Imperial  Chancellor  would  maintain  their 
independence." 

In  1 91 3  the  question  was  brought  to  the  front  again  by  the 
Saverne — or,  to  use  the  German  name,  Zabern  — incident.  Dur- 
ing a  street  disturbance  in  the  Alsatian  garrison  town  of  Zabern 
a  swaggering  lieutenant  slashed  an  unoffending  crippled  cobbler 
with  his  sword.  The  affair  brought  the  civil  and  military 
authorities  of  Alsace-Lorraine  into  conflict  and  aroused  in- 
dignation among  non-militaristic  people  throughout  the  Empire. 
In  the  Reichstag  the  Socialists  and  Radicals,  who  were  in  the 
majority,  bitterly  assailed  the  government;  and  when  the 
Chancellor  announced  that  the  action  of  the  troops  would  be 
upheld,  they  carried  a  vote  of  "  no  confidence  "  by  the  heavy 
majority  of  293  to  54.     The  only  result  was  that  the  Emperor 

1  On  the  Daily  Telegraph  episode  see  Annual  Register  (1908),  299-302,  and  Shaw, 
William  of  Germany,  304-308.  The  complete  text  of  the  interview  is  printed  in 
Hill,  Impressions  of  the  Kaiser,  329-335. 


706  GOVERNMENTS  01    El  ROPE 

agreed  to  order  the  removal  of  the  offending  regiment  from 
Zabern.  In  a  stormy  sitting  the  Reichstag  demanded  the 
Chancellor's  resignation.  But  that  official  declined  to  recognize 
that  he  was  in  any  way  responsible  to  the  Reii  hstag,  and  coolly 
declared  that  he  would  remain  in  office  as  long  as  the  Emperor 
wished  to  retain  him.  A  resolution  withholding  approval  of 
the  budget  until  the  resignation  should  be  submitted  was  narrowly 
losl  ;  and  the  matter  v\u\v^\  in  the  usual  government  victory.1 

The  movement  for  reform  of  the  antiquated  Prussian  electoral 
system  has  been  described  elsewhere,2  and  hence  calls  for  no 
comment  here,  except  to  point  out  that  all  important  proposals 
on  the  subject,  thai  got  before  the  Landtag  up  to  ioio  were 
private  members'  resolutions,  foredoomed  to  failure,  and  that 
the  government  bill  of  1910  was  obviously  drawn  in  the  hope 
that  it  would  be  defeated,  but  also  in  the  confidence  that,  if 
passed,  it  would  not  seriously  weaken  the  citadel  of  aristocracy 
and  reactionism.  The  parties  that  wanted  real  reform  opposed 
the  bill  because  it  did  not  go  far  enough ;  the  conservative  ele- 
ments opposed  it  because  it  went  too  far.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, its  failure  was  inevitable. 

Discussion  of  Reform  during  the  War.  —  Notwithstanding 
these  and  many  more  reverses,  Germany  seemed  in  191 4  to  be 
slowly  advancing  toward  a  moderate  political  reconstruction. 
Then  came  the  war,  whose  political  effect  could  not  be  foretold, 
beyond  the  probability  that  if  a  decisive  victory  were  quickly 
attained  the  autocratic,  militaristic  forces  would  become  yet 
more  solidly  intrenched,  while  a  prolonged  and  indecisive  con- 
test, and  especially  a  German  defeat,  would  give  liberalism  a 
chance  to  express  itself  as  perhaps  never  before.  Events  worked 
out  substantially  on  these  lines.  The  first  effect  of  the  conflict 
was  to  stabilize  the  political  system  and  fortify  the  existing 
government.  Criticism  and  complaint  suddenly  ceased,  and, 
to  the  astonishment  of  many  people  in  Germany  as  well  as 
elsewhere,  the  Social  Democrats,  with  some  notable  exceptions, 
voted  for  the  early  war  budgets  and  in  other  ways  gave  their 
support.3  In  191 5  some  restlessness  appeared,  and  at  the 
beginning  of  191 6  Chancellor  von  Bethmann-Hollweg  deemed  it 

1  The  Zabern  affair  is  briefly  described  in  W.  S.  Davis,  The  Roots  of  the  War 
(New  York,  1918),  219-223,  and  more  fully  in  C.  D.  Hazen,  Alsace-Lorraine  under 
German  Rule  (New  York,  191 7),  Chap.  viii. 

2  See  p.  663. 

3  The  division  which,  however,  soon  arose  in  the  socialist  ranks,  and  the  positions 
eventually  assumed  by  the  two  wings  of  the  party,  will  be  described  below.  See 
PP-  7I3. 


WAR-TIME   MOVEMENT   FOR  POLITICAL  REFORM      707 

advisable  to  appease  popular  sentiment  by  promising  electoral 
reform  for  Prussia,  although  it  was  not  to  be  carried  out  until 
after  the  war. 

Speaking  broadly,  both  the  Prussian  and  Imperial  govern- 
ments went  along  until  191 7  with  little  change  of  personnel 
and  character.  Then,  however,  the  scene  began  to  shift  rapidly. 
War-weariness  had  laid  hold  of  the  masses,  and  both  peace 
propaganda  and  agitation  for  government  reform  got  beyond 
control.  Two  events,  chiefly,  crystallized  the  popular  opposition 
—  the  Russian  revolution  and  entrance  into  the  war  by  the 
United  States.  On  the  day  before  the  tsar  of  Russia  abdicated 
(March  15,  191 7)  Chancellor  von  Bethmann-Hollweg  was 
driven  to  renew  in  the  Landtag  the  promise  of  electoral  reform, 
and  was  obliged  to  hear  from  the  tribune  the  prediction  of  a 
socialist  member  that  "  a  republic  was  a  coming  inevitable 
development  in  Germany."  Two  weeks  later  he  said  in  the 
Reichstag  that  the  promised  reform  must  not  be  undertaken 
while  millions  of  men  were  in  the  trenches.  But  this  did  not 
deter  the  chamber  from  creating  (by  a  vote  of  227  to  33)  a  special 
committee  of  twenty-eight  members  to  consider  constitutional 
reforms,  as  related  not  only  to  the  Prussian  electoral  system 
but  to  reapportionment  and  ministerial  responsibility  in  the 
Empire ;  and  so  stormy  became  the  discussion  that  the  Reichs- 
tag was  prorogued  for  a  month.  In  a  rescript  of  April  7  the 
Emperor  himself  admitted  the  necessity  of  constitutional  changes, 
but  insisted  that  they  must  await  the  restoration  of  peace. 

In  the  early  summer  of  191 7  an  acute  political  crisis  arose. 
On  July  6  the  Center  leader,  Erzberger,  delivered  a  sensational 
speech  in  the  Reichstag  Main  Committee,  attacking  the  Pan- 
German  and  anti-democratic  groups  and  throwing  the  weight 
of  his  party  on  the  side  of  the  Social  Democrats  and  Radicals 
in  favor  of  "  peace  without  annexations  "  and  democratic  con- 
stitutional reform.  Confronted  by  a  hostile  bloc,  the  govern- 
ment was  now  forced  to  make  some  move  that  would  at  least 
seem  to  be  a  concession  to  the  reform  elements.  A  new  pledge 
of  Prussian  electoral  reform,  to  be  carried  out  before  the  next 
elections,  proved  insufficient,  and  three  days  later  Chancellor 
von  Bethmann-Hollweg  resigned,  the  scapegoat  of  a  govern- 
ment which  was  trying  to  stem  the  tide  of  public  disapproval 
without  in  any  way  departing  from  his  policy.  The  new  Chan- 
cellor, Dr.  Georg  Michaelis,  was  an  inconspicuous  bureaucrat, 
and  obviously  a  puppet  in  the  hands  of  the  military  leaders. 
His  first  utterances  in  the  Reichstag  were  anxiously  awaited. 


70S  GOA  ERNMEN  rS  OF   EX  ROPE 

But  they  were  evasive;  and  the  year  passed,  with  much  di>- 
cussion,  but  without  definite  progress.  A  "free  commitl 
composed  of  seven  members  of  the  Reichstag  (distributed  among 
the  five  principal  parties)  and  seven  representatives  <>f  the 
Bundesrath,  and  presided  over  by  the  Chancellor,  was  called 
into  being  to  discuss  questions  of  polity  relating  to  foreign 
affairs  and  the  conduct  of  the  war;  but  this  resulted  in  no  clear 
gain.1  In  October  Michaelis  was  succeeded  in  the  chancellor- 
ship by  Count  von  Hertling,  a  Bavarian  (the  first  of  German 
chancellors  who  was  not  a  Prussian  I  ;  hut,  while  the  new  official's 
choice  was  at  first  regarded  as  a  concession  to  liberalism,  no  real 
reason  for  such  a  supposition  subsequently  appeared.  During 
the  winter  of  1917-18  strikes  were  organized  in  Prussia  as  pro- 
tests against  the  dilatory  tactics  of  the  government  in  dealing 
with  electoral  reform;  but  they  were  suppressed  without  result. 
In  the  spring  of  1918  the  movement  seemed  to  go  backward 
rather  than  forward.  Inspired  with  fresh  confidence  by  the 
humiliation  of  Russia  in  the  Brest-Litovsk  treaty  and  by  the 
success  of  the  new  "  drive  "  on  the  western  front,  the  Prussian 
reactionaries  repudiated  the  Emperor's  pledges  and  carried,  in 
the  lower  branch  of  the  Landtag,  by  a  vote  of  235  to  183,  a  bill 
substituting  an  elaborate  six-class  electoral  scheme  for  the 
promised  plan  of  equal  suffrage.  Another  straw  which  showed 
which  way  the  wind  was  blowing  was  the  dismissal,  in  July,  of 
the  foreign  secretary,  von  Kuehlmann,  for  saying  publicly  that 
Germany  could  no  longer  hope  for  a  military  victory,  followed 
by  the  appointment  in  his  stead  of  the  extreme  Junker  and 
notorious  intriguer,  Admiral  von  Hintze. 

Political  Changes  in  the  Hour  of  Defeat  -the  Revolution  of 
1918.  —  The  last  chapter  in  the  history  of  the  reform  movement, 
prior  to  the  collapse  of  the  Central  Powers  and  the  signing  of  the 
armistice  of  November  11,  1918,  is  the  most  curious  of  all.  The 
tide  of  battle  was  now  running  strongly  in  favor  of  the  Entente 
nations  ;  German  statesmen  instinctively  felt  the  end  to  be  near ; 
and  the  central  feature  of  the  constitutional  discussion  became 
the  earnest,  even  frantic,  effort  of  the  Imperial  authorities  to 
convince  the  world,  and  especially  President  Wilson,  that  re- 
forms were  under  way  which  would  make  the  German  govern- 
ment thoroughly  representative  of  the  people,  if  indeed  it  had 
not  already  acquired  that  character.  The  primary  object,  of 
course,  was  to  persuade  the  American  Executive  that  the  urgent 
correspondence  concerning  peace  which  was  about  to  begin  was 
1  London  rimes  (Weekly  ed.),  Aug.  31,  1917,  p.  710. 


WAR-TIME   MOVEMENT   FOR  POLITICAL  REFORM      709 

with  a  government  entirely  different  from  that  with  which  he 
had  declared  himself  unwilling  to  treat.  On  August  24  the 
Emperor  signed  an  act  raising  the  membership  of  the  Reichstag 
to  441,  redistributing  the  seats  on  an  approximate  basis  of  one 
for  each  200,000  inhabitants,  and  introducing  proportional 
representation  in  a  number  of  districts  having  more  than  one 
deputy.1  In  early  September  Chancellor  von  Hertling  made 
a  sensational  speech  before  the  ultra-conservative  constitution 
committee  of  the  Prussian  House  of  Lords,  ardently  advocating 
electoral  reform  and  in  effect  admitting  that  the  survival  of  the 
Hohenzollern  dynasty  was  at  stake ;  and  at  the  reassembling 
of  the  Reichstag,  near  the  close  of  the  month,  he  announced  that 
the  government  was  prepared  to  carry  out  its  program  of  re- 
form in  good  faith,  although  he  added  that  a  far-reaching  alter- 
ation of  the  historic  structure  of  Prussia  and  of  the  Empire  was 
not  a  task  to  be  carried  through  hurriedly.  Efforts  to  force  the 
government's  hand  led  almost  immediately  to  von  Hertling's 
retirement.  But  his  successor  was  another  south  German, 
Prince  Maximilian,  heir  to  the  grand-ducal  throne  of  Baden,  who 
also  entered  office  with  a  reputation  for  liberal  views ;  and  the 
new  ministry  significantly  included  three  Social  Democrats, 
one  of  them,  Philipp  Scheidemann,  as  a  member  without  port- 
folio. Already  a  socialist  saddle-maker,  Friedrich  Ebert,  had 
been  elected  president  of  the  Main  Committee  of  the  Reichstag, 
which  meant  that  his  party  had  come  into  practical  control  of 
that  chamber. 

So  far  as  words  went,  Germany  now  entered  upon  a  new 
political  era.  On  September  30  the  Emperor  issued  a  proc- 
lamation affirming  his  desire  that  the  German  people  should 
"  cooperate  more  effectively  than  hitherto  in  deciding  the  fate 
of  the  Fatherland,"  and  declaring  his  will  that  "  men  who  are 
sustained  by  the  people's  trust  shall  to  a  great  extent  cooperate 
in  the  rights  and  duties  of  government."  On  October  2  the 
world  was  informed  that  the  Prussian  upper  chamber  had 
passed  the  franchise  bill,  so  amended  as  to  provide  for  direct 
and  equal  suffrage.  Three  days  later  the  new  Chancellor  de- 
clared in  the  Reichstag  that  electoral  reform  in  Prussia  must 
immediately  be  carried  to  completion ;  that  "  other  German 
states  which  lag  behind  in  their  constitutional  conditions " 
could  be  expected  "  resolutely  to  follow  the  Prussian  example  "  ; 
and  that  the  Imperial  constitution  was  to  be  amended  so  as  to 

1  This  law,  approved  by  the  Bundesrath  as  early  as  February  16,  1918,  was  never 
in  effect. 


7to  GOVERNMENTS   OF    EUROPE 

enable  members  of  the  Reichstag  who  "  entered  the  govern- 
ment "  to  retain  their  seats  in  the  popular  chamber,  after  the 
manner  of  cabinet   officers  in   Greal    Britain  and  France*    On 

October  \()  it  was  announced  that  the  Bundesrath  had  voted 
a  constitutional  amendment  depriving  the  Emperor  of  the  power 

to  declare  war  without  the  consent  of  both  Bundesrath  and 
Reichstag,  "except  in  the  case  where  the  Imperial  territory  has 
already  been  invaded  or  it^  coasts  atta<  ked." 

Meanwhile  President  Wilson's  din  1 1  demand  that  the  German 
governmental  system  be  popularized  as  a  necessary  preliminary 
to  peace  negotiations,  originally  made  in  the  Mount  Vernon 
address  of  July  4.  [918,  was  reiterated  in  a  communication  to 
Berlin  under  date  of  October  14.1  To  this  the  new  foreign 
secretary,  Dr.  Soil',  replied,  October  21.  that  the  Imperial  con- 
stitution had  already  been  so  modified  that  in  future  no  govern- 
ment could  "  enter  upon  or  carry  on  its  work  without  possessing 
the  confidence  of  the  majority  of  the  Reichstag."  The  re- 
sponsibility of  the  Chancellor,  it  was  asserted,  was  being  "  legally 
extended  and  safeguarded."  Finally,  it  was  reported  that  the 
firsl  act  of  the  present  government  had  been  to  submit  a  bill  to 
the  Reichstag  "  so  amending  the  constitution  as  to  make  the 
approval  of  that  body  requisite  for  a  decision  on  war  and  peace." 
Under  date  of  October  23,  President  Wilson  declared  that 
"  significant  and  important  "  as  these  constitutional  changes 
seemed.,  it  did  not.  appear  that  the  principle  of  responsible 
government  had  yet  been  fully  worked  out,  or  that  any  guarantees 
existed  or  were  in  contemplation  that  the  "alterations  of  principle 
and  of  practice  now  partially  agreed  upon  will  be  permanent." 
Five  days  later  Emperor  William  instructed  the  Chancellor  to 
proclaim  at  once  the  constitutional  amendment  purporting  to 
establish  ministerial  responsibility,  and  asserted  that  a  new  order 
now  came  into  force  which  "  transfers  the  fundamental  rights 
of  the  Kaiser's  person  to  the  people."2 

Meanwhile  the  German  military  and  diplomatic  collapse  was 

1  \.  B.  Hart  [ed.],  Selected  Addresses  and  Public  Papers  of  Woodrow  Wilson 
(New  York,  1919),  266-260. 

2  London  Times  (Weekly  ed.),  Nov.  8,  1918,  p.  903.    Discussion  of  political 

1  in  the  period  under  review  moved,  therefore,  toward  three  main  objectives: 
ministerial  responsibility  in  the  Imperial  government,  popular  control  over  war  and 

1  relations,  and  a  new  electoral  system  in  Prussia.    The  first  wasnominally 
attained.    The  second  was  attained  to  this  extent,  that  the  Bundesrath  ap] 
an  amendment  giving  the  Bundesrath  and   Reichstai  er  to  declare  war 

excepl  in  a  case  where  Germany  should  have  been  actually  invaded  or  its 
attact  unattained  when  the  collapse  came,  although  a 

tantially  the  sort  <i    in  d  had  been  passed  by  the  Prussian  upper  house. 


WAR-TIME   MOVEMENT   FOR   POLITICAL  REFORM      711 

imminent.  The  armies  were  everywhere  being  forced  back; 
the  invasion  of  German  soil  seemed  only  a  question  of  time ; 
power  of  resistance  was  slowly  but  surely  ebbing;  schemes  to 
divide  and  weaken  the  Allies  had  failed;  Bavaria  and  other 
states  were  threatening  to  secede ;  the  fall  of  the  Hohenzollern 
dynasty  was  widely  regarded  as  not  improbable,  and  in  the 
Reichstag  the  Socialists  were  clamoring  for  a  republic.  The 
end  came  with  unexpected  swiftness.  On  November  4  a  long- 
brewing  naval  mutiny  broke  out  at  Kiel;  three  days  later 
Bavaria  was  in  the  grip  of  an  uprising,  which  spread  as  fire  fanned 
by  a  breeze;  great  popular  assemblages  in  Munich  and  else- 
where demanded  the  Kaiser's  abdication ;  on  November  9 
Berlin  itself  succumbed  to  the  spirit  of  insurrection.  How  far 
the  revolution  was  the  result  of  concerted  planning  has  not  been 
fully  revealed.  But  the  demand  of  the  Socialists  for  the  Kaiser's 
abdication  and  for  the  establishment  of  a  republic  had  struck 
a  responsive  chord  throughout  the  country ;  organized  labor 
was  deeply  infected  with  radical,  bolshevist  ideas  propagated 
from  Russia ;  the  soldiery  in  the  capital  and  other  principal 
centers  stood  ready  to  join  the  workers.  The  revolution  was 
actually  accomplished  through  a  general  strike  of  factory  workers, 
and,  being  supported  by  the  troops,  was  practically  bloodless.1 

On  November  9  the  Chancellor  issued  a  proclamation  announc- 
ing the  purpose  of  the  Kaiser  to  abdicate,  of  the  crown  prince 
to  renounce  the  succession,  and  of  the  Chancellor  himself  to 
retire ;  and  during  the  next  forty-eight  hours,  while  the  terms  of 
the  armistice  laid  down  by  the  Allies  awaited  acceptance,  full 
control  of  affairs  passed  into  the  hands  of  a  provisional  govern- 
ment headed  by  the  Socialist  leader  Ebert,  whom  Prince  Maxi- 
milian, in  his  last  official  act,  designated  as  his  own  successor. 
In  its  first  form,  the  temporary  ministry  of  Chancellor  Ebert 
was  composed  in  equal  numbers  (three  each)  of  representatives 
of  the  two  branches  —  Social  Democrats  and  Independent 
Socialists  —  into  which  the  Socialist  party  had  previously  split. 
"  Comrades,"  ran  a  decree  issued  by  the  new  government  on 
the  evening  of  November  9,  "  this  day  has  completed  the  freeing 
of  the  people.  The  Emperor  has  abdicated,  his  eldest  son  has 
renounced  the  throne.  The  Social.  Democratic  party  has  taken 
over  the  government,  and  has  offered  entry  into  the  government 
to  the  Independent  Social  Democratic  party  on  the  basis  of 
complete  equality.  The  new  government  will  arrange  for  an 
election  of  a  Constituent  National  Assembly,  in  which  all  citizens 

1  N.  Y.  Times  Curroil  History,  Dec,  1918,  pp.  3S5-392. 


712  GOVERNMEN  IS  OF    EUROPE 

of  either  sex  who  are  over  twenty  years  of  age  will  lake  pari 
with  absolutely  equal  rights.  After  that  it  will  resign  its  powers 
into  the  hands  of  the  new  representatives  of  the  people."1  To 
•  .unhide  an  armistice  and  conduct  peace  negotiations,  to  assure 
the  feeding  of  the  population,  to  "secure  for  the  men  in  the 
army  the  quickesl  possible  orderly  return  to  their  families 
and  to  wage-earning  work  "  these  were  announced  as  the 
immediate  tasks  of  the  new  regime;  and  the  first,  the  signing 
of  the  armistice,  was  immediately  accomplished,  November  n. 
Meanwhile  the  Kaiser  took  refuge  in  Holland,  although  he 
delayed  nineteen  days  before  signing  his  formal  act  of  abdication  ;2 
the  crown  prince  renounced  the  Prussian  and  Imperial  suc- 
cession; the  hereditary  rulers  of  all  of  the  lesser  states  gave 
up  the  effort  to  retain  power,  and  new  provisional  governments 
assumed  control ;  workers'  and  soldiers'  councils  were  organized 
in  many  cities. 

The  New  Parties  and  their  Programs.  —  The  old  regime 
seemed  to  have  perished.  Monarchy  was  at  an  end ;  the 
Bundesrath  and  Reichstag  broke  up  and  disappeared  ;  Imperial 
and  state  constitutions  became  dead  letters.  What  would  the 
outcome  be?  What  forms  and  methods  of  government  would 
finally  prevail?  There  was  room  for  much  doubt,  not  to  say 
apprehension.  In  the  first  place,  it  was  by  no  means  certain 
that  the  radical  forces  which,  after  half  a  century  of  waiting,  had 
come  into  control  would  be  able  to  preserve  their  fresh-won 
dominance.  The  spirit  of  revolution  had  not  permeated  the 
people  as  a  whole ;  indeed,  large  and  powerful  classes  had  not 
been  affected  by  it  at  all.  It  is  true  that  soon  after  the  revolution 
most  of  the  political  parties  reorganized  themselves  and  took 
new  names.  But  they  remained  largely  unchanged  in  ideas  and 
principles.  Thus  the  old  Conservative  party  and  its  minor  allies 
came  forth  as  the  German  Xational  People's  party,  with  Count 
Westarp  and  Baron  von  Gamp  as  its  leaders.  But  it  was  frankly 
Pan-Germanist,  militarist,  and  monarchist  in  principle;  it 
anxiously  awaited  a  favorable  moment  for  launching  the  counter- 
revolution ;  and  meanwhile  it  directed  its  efforts  toward 
strengthening  the  army,  combating  bolshevism,  and  preparing 
the  public  mind  to  reject  any  peace  treaty  that  would  deprive 
the  country  of  its  colonies  or  limit  its  future  as  a  world  power. 

The  old  National  Liberal  party  passed  largely  into  a  new  Ger- 
man People's  party,  led  by  Dr.  Stresemann.     This  new  group 

x"The  German  Revolution,"  in  Internal.  Conciliation,  Apr.,  iqiq,  p.  543. 
2  Ibid.,  pp.  541-542.     See  N.  Y.  Times  Current  History,  Jan.,  1919,  pp.  50-60. 


WAR-TIME   MOVEMENT   FOR   POLITICAL   REFORM    713 

felt  that  the  Hohenzollern  dynasty  could  never  be  restored  and 
that  a  counter-revolution  would  be  a  failure.  Hence  it  professed 
to  be  willing  to  cooperate  with  a  republican  government.  But 
it  was  monarchist  at  heart,  and  many  of  its  prominent  members, 
including  its  leader,  did  not  hesitate  to  express  their  distrust 
of  the  republican  form.  Representing  the  great  industrial  and 
commercial  interests,  the  party  hardly  differed  in  its  attitude 
toward  the  political  situation  from  the  German  National  People's 
party,  representing  the  landholding  interests,  save  by  being  less 
frank  and  unreserved  in  its  support  of  militarism,  imperialism, 
and  monarchism.  The  old  Catholic  Centrum  was  renamed  the 
Christian  People's  party.  Under  the  leadership  of  Erzberger 
and  Dr.  Spahn,  this  party  openly  supported  the  provisional 
government ;  indeed,  Erzberger  accepted  office  under  that 
government.  Save  as  the  guardian  of  Catholic  interests,  the 
party,  however,  occupied  no  very  fixed  position,  and  its  support 
of  the  new  regime  was  not  dependable. 

An  even  more  important  element  of  uncertainty  was  the 
sharp  division  existing  among  the  radical  forces  that  had  now 
come  into  power.  Four  main  groups  could  be  distinguished. 
The  most  moderate  was  the  German  Democratic  party,  formed 
from  the  old  Radicals  and  a  section  of  the  National  Liberals, 
under  the  able  leadership  of  Theodor  Wolff,  Conrad  Haussman, 
and  the  eminent  jurist  Hugo  Preuss.  This  was  a  middle-class 
party,  but  it  warmly  supported  republicanism  and  favored 
gradual  socialization,  at  all  events  of  natural  monopolies.  It 
was  prepared  to  work  whole-heartedly  with  the  Majority  Social- 
ists, and  soon  after  the  armistice  it  was  admitted  to  an  important 
share  in  the  government.  It,  furthermore,  advocated  free  trade, 
complete  separation  of  church  and  state,  and  the  establishment 
of  a  league  of  nations.  The  next  two  groups  in  the  order  of 
radicalism  were  the  Majority  Socialists  and  the  Independent 
Socialists.  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  Social  Democratic 
party  as  constituted  on  the  eve  of  the  war  contained  as  many 
as  four  or  five  distinct  elements,  ranging  from  the  imperialist 
socialists  who  differed  but  little  from  the  bourgeois  imperialists 
to  the  revolutionary  wing  which  was  bent  solely  upon  immediate 
and  thoroughgoing  class  war.1  The  unanimity  with  which  the 
party  fell  into  line  in  support  of  the  government  upon  the  out- 
break of  the  war  did  not  last  long,  and,  at  that,  was  more  apparent 
than  real.  Before  the  close  of  191 4  Liebknecht,  Kautsky,  Haase, 
Bernstein,  Mehring,  and  other  influential  members  put  them- 

1  See  p.  700. 


7>4  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

selves  oil  record  as  opposing  the  party's  support  of  the  war, 
and  early  in  1915  the  opposition  gained  the  upper  hand  in  the 
socialist  group  in  the  Prussian  lower  chamber.1 

Thenceforth  the  division  steadily  grew,  One  small  element, 
headed  by  Liebknec  ht  and  Rosa  Luxemburg,  consistently  and 
sturdily  denounced  the  government's  measures  until  it  was 
practically  silenced  by  imprisonment.  A  larger  element,  Includ- 
ing Kautsky,  Bernstein,  and  Haase,  criticized  the  party  dele- 
gation in  the  Reichstag  for  continuing  to  vote  war  credits,  yet 
did  not  deny  that  the  war  was  a  proper  one  for  Germany  to 
wage,  until  it  gradually  became  convinced  that  the  government's 
main  object  was  conquest.  That  conclusion  was  reached  in 
the  spring  of  1916,  and  thereupon  the  dissentient  minority  — 
including  about  one  fifth  of  the  socialist  members  of  the  Reichs- 
tag—  broke  with  the  Social  Democratic  party  and  formed  a 
rival  organization,  known  henceforth  as  the  Independent  Socialist 
party. 

Led  by  Ebert  and  Scheidemann,  the  Majority  Socialists  con- 
tinued to  support  the  war  (save  during  a  brief  period  in  the 
Michaelis  regime)  until  the  reverses  on  the  western  front  in  the 
summer  and  autumn  of  19 18  dashed  the  last  hope  of  a  military 
victory;  then  they  became,  in  the  fashion  that  has  been  de- 
scribed, the  legatee  of  the  collapsing  Imperial  regime.  They 
were  socialists,  but  of  a  moderate,  practical  stripe.  They 
favored  gradual  socialization,  a  rapidly  rising  income  tax, 
separation  of  church  and  state,  popular  election  of  judges  and 
other  officials,  and  the  entrance  of  Germany  into  a  league  of 
nations.  It  was  easy  for  the  Democrats  to  work  with  them, 
for  the  only  important  difference  between  the  two  parties  was 
that  one  was  bourgeois  and  the  other  chiefly  proletarian.  The 
Independent  Socialists,  on  the  other  hand,  considered  them- 
selves the  true  custodians  of  Marxist  doctrine  and  stood  firmly 
for  the  Erfurt  Program,  with  emphasis  upon  immediate  and 
thoroughgoing  nationalization.  For  two  wars  they  openly 
opposed  the  war;  and  although  when  the  vn'\  came  tiny  were 
admitted  to  a  share  in  the  provisional  governm<  nt,  they  again 
went  into  opposition  as  the  dominant  Majority  element  swung 
and  more  toward  the  Right  in  quest  of  dependable  support.2 

rman  Social  Democracy  during  tin  War,  Chaps,  iv  viii. 

2  The  .Majority  Soii.ili-is  —  "Government"  Socialists,  their  rivals  scornfully 

ihem  —  justified  their  course  in  two  principal  ways.     Some,  especially  the 

bal  1  he  attitude  of  the  party  before  I 

and  urged  that  it  was  the  duty  of  all  socialists  to  work  with  the  government,  with 

a  view  to  gradually  acquiring  control  thereof.     Others  said  that  the  party's  policy 


WAR-TIME   MOVEMENT   FOR  POLITICAL   REFORM     715 

The  fourth  and  most  radical  of  the  groups  of  the  Left  in  191 8 
was  the  Spartacists  *  or  Communists.  Under  the  leadership 
of  Liebknecht  and  Rosa  Luxemburg,  this  party  drew  off  the 
extremest  elements  of  both  socialist  organizations,  and  its  for- 
mation and  growth  were  powerfully  stimulated  by  the  propa- 
ganda of  the  Russian  Bolsheviki.  The  principles  and  purposes 
of  the  Spartacists  were  indeed  practically  identical  with  those 
of  the  bolshevists :  ultra-internationalism ;  abolition  of  taxes 
and  national  debts ;  substitution  of  a  workmen's  militia  for  the 
standing  army ;  suppression  of  capitalism  in  every  form  ;  denial 
to  the  capitalist  and  bourgeois  classes  of  any  share  whatsoever 
in  the  management  of  public  affairs  ;  reorganization  of  the  state 
on  the  model  of  the  Russian  soviet  system.  Direct  action  — 
not  the  slow  and  deliberate  method  of  elections  and  legislation 
—  was  to  be  the  means  of  bringing  about  the  new  order,  and  the 
general  strike  was  regarded  as  the  most  effective  weapon. 

As  matters  stood  in  November,  1918,  there  were,  therefore, 
as  many  as  four  distinct  lines  along  which  political  development 
in  the  former  Empire  might  run.  A  slight  backward  swing 
would  probably  mean  only  a  moderate  reconstruction  of  the 
governmental  system,  with  a  revival  of  monarchy,  although 
hardly  of  the  Hohenzollern  dynasty.  Continued  control  by  the 
moderate  socialists  would  mean  a  republic,  fortified  with  the 
instrumentalities  of  advanced  democracy,  and  a  gradual  and 
cautious  nationalization  of  the  means  of  production  and  distri- 
bution. Control  by  the  more  radical  socialists  would  probably 
mean  an  immediate  attempt  to  install  the  socialistic  type  of  state 
outright.  Finally,  Spartacist  dominance  would  lead,  like  the 
bolshevist  regime  in  Russia,  to  the  summary  annihilation  of  all 
existing  political  forms,  the  introduction  of  the  soviet,  the 
turning  of  society  upside  down  by  the  establishment  of  the 
dictatorship  of  the  proletariat. 

The  probabilities  of  the  situation  lay  with  the  second   and 

before  1914  was  the  correct  one,  but  that  its  practice  was  now  justifiably  different 
because  it  was  the  duty  of  all  people,  socialists  included,  to  support  their  country 
in  a  defensive  war.  The  defense  of  the  Independents,  similarly,  ran  on  two  lines. 
One  element,  maintaining  that  Germany  was  waging  an  aggressive  rather  than  a 
defensive  war,  held  that  on  that  ground  support  should  be  denied.  _  An  extremer 
element  argued  that  all  existing  governments  rested  upon  capitalism,  that  \v;ir 
was  the  natural  outcome  of  the  capitalistic  system,  and  that,  while  the  socialist 
might  fight  as  a  common  soldier,  he  ought  not  to  -vote  money  or  in  any  other  way 
share  the  government's  responsibility.  For  a  fuller  analysis  of  these  positions 
see  Bevan,  German  Social  Democracy  during  the  War,  Chap,  xxiii.  Cf.  Walling, 
The  Socialists  and  the  War,  Chap.  xix. 

1  So  named  for  the  gladiator  Spartacus  who  led  a  servile  revolt  at  Rome  in 
73-71  B.C. 


7i6  GOVERNMENTS   OK   EUROPE 

third  of  these  alternatives.  The  reaction  in  the  direction  oi 
modified  monarchy  and  mild  parliamentarism  mighl  eventually 
come,  but  hardly  until  other  plans  had  beeo  tried  and  found 
wanting.    On  the  other  hand,  the  Spartadsts,  while  momentarily 

in  the  ascendant  in  Munich  and  several  other  centers,  and  while 
able  to  inspire  a  vast  amount  of  unrest  and  disorder,  failed  to 
get  a  grip  upon  the  country  as  a  whole, and  they  seemed  reasonably 
certain  never  to  be  able  to  break  down  the  attachment  of  the 
average  German  to  the  things  which  bolshevism  would  destroy. 
As  between  the  two  programs  of  organized  socialism  a  real  choice, 
however,  had  to  be  made.  Should  tin-  emphasis  be  placed  upon 
the  completion  of  the  political  revolution,  the  making  of  a  new 
constitution,  the  reorganization  of  administration,  thereby 
holding  over  the  social  and  economic  revolution  to  be  taken  up 
gradually  at  a  later  time?  Or  should  the  social  revolution  come 
first?  Chancellor  Ebert  and  his  Majority  supporters  favored 
the  first  plan ;  Haase  and  the  more  radical  elements  favored  the 
second ;  and  when  it  became  apparent  that  the  Majority  policy 
was  to  prevail,  Haase  and  his  fellow-partisans  withdrew  (De- 
cember 28,  191 8)  from  the  provisional  government.1 

1  No  satisfactory  history  of  the  revolution  of  igi8  has  as  yet  been  written. 
English,  French,  and  American  periodicals  of  the  period  contain  many  articles 
and  much  editorial  comment,  but  a-  a  rule  the  writers  had  little  exact  information. 
A  useful  article  on  the  first  results  of  the  Imperial  collapse  is  W.  J.  Shcpard,  "The 
New  (iovernment  in  Germany,"  in  Amer.  Polit.  Sci.  Rev.,  Aug.,  1919.  G.  Young, 
The  New  Germany  (New  York,  1920)  is  a  good  journalistic  account.  The  new  party 
alignment  is  described  in  P.  Eltzbacher,  Die  neuen  Parteien  und  Hire  Programme 
(Berlin,  1919).     See  additional  references  on  p.  720. 


< 


CHAPTER  XXXIX 


THE   REPUBLICAN   CONSTITUTION 

The  National  Constituent  Assembly.  —  Meanwhile  prepara- 
tions went  forward  for  the  election  of  the  constituent  assembly 
which  the  provisional  government  had  promised  at  its  accession 
to  power.  On  November  12,  1918,  a  proclamation  was  issued 
announcing  that  henceforth  all  elections  would  be  carried  out 
on  the  basis  of  equal,  secret,  direct,  and  universal  suffrage,  for 
both  men  and  women  twenty  years  of  age  and  upwards,  on  the 
principle  of  proportional  representation.  Other  proclamations 
on  the  subject  followed,  and  on  November  30  the  election  was 
set  for  February  16,  191 9.  Harassed  by  Spartacist  and  other 
radical  outbreaks,  and  embarrassed  by  criticism  of  the  conserva- 
tive elements  for  its  failure  to  suppress  the  growing  disorders, 
the  government  decided,  however,  to  hasten  the  work  of  constitu- 
tion-making; and  the  elections  were  actually  held  on  Sunday, 
January  19.  The  campaign  was  spirited,  and  notwithstanding 
the  efforts  of  the  Spartacists  to  thwart  the  entire  plan,  approxi- 
mately ninety  per  cent  of  the  qualified  voters  went  to  the  polls. 
The  country  had  been  divided  for  the  purpose  into  thirty-eight 
districts,  returning  from  six  to  sixteen  members  each,  on  the  ap- 
proximate basis  of  one  delegate  for  each  150,000  inhabitants; 
and  the  total  number  of  delegates  had  been  fixed  at  433.  It  was 
decided,  however,  to  hold  no  elections  in  Alsace-Lorraine,  and 
this  brought  the  number  of  districts  down  to  thirty-seven  and 
the  number  of  delegates  actually  chosen  to  423.  The  results, 
disregarding  various  minor  groups,  may  be  tabulated  as  follows : 


Party 

No.  of  Votes 

Per  Cent 
of  Total 
Vote  Cast 

No.  of 

Seats 

11,130,452 
5,686,104 
5,261,187 
2,408,387 
2,187,305 
1,473,975 

38.7 

19.7 

18.3 

8.4 

7.6 

5-i 

165 
90 

75 
42 
22 
22 



The  Spartacists  put  no  candidates  in  the  field, 
g  or  supported  Independent  Socialists. 

717 


They  either  refrained  from 


7  iS  GOVERNMEN  rS   01     EUROPE 

( !omparison  of  these  figures  with  the  statistics  of  the  Rei<  I 
elections  of  mi  ■  is  not  especially  profitable.     But  after  making 
due  allowance  for  the  dU  of  the  electorate  and  of  the 

apportionment  of  seats,  it  is  still  manifest  that  there  had  been  a 
heavy  movemenl  toward  the  Left.  The  National  People's 
party  formed  bu1  8.4  per  cent  of  the  new  assembly,  whereas  its 
predecessor,  the  Conservative  party,  formed  1  7a)  per  cent  of  the 
old  >>ne.  On  the  other  hand,  the  two  socialist  parties  formed 
46.3  per  tent  of  the  new  body,  whereas  the  united  Social  Demo- 
cratic party  held  only  30.3  per  cent  of  the  seats  in  the  Reichstag. 
It  was  generally  considered  that  the  members  of  the  Assembly 
were  of  rather  more  than  average  ability.  There  were  many 
former  members  of  the  Reichstag  and  numerous  other  persons 
of  experience  in  public  affairs  and  in  business;  trade  union  of- 
ficials, journalists,  and  lawyers  predominated.  Included  in  the 
member-hip  were  thirty-seven  women,  most  of  them  socialists.1 

The  Constitution  Framed.  Notwithstanding  Independent 
Socialist  opposition  and  Spartacist  turbulence,  the  Assembly 
met  promptly  on  the  date  announced,  February  6,  at  Weimar.2 
There  was  a  good  attendance,  and  the  work  in  hand  was  entered 
upon  with  orderliness  and  dispatch.  The  rules  of  procedure 
in  force  in  the  late  Reichstag  were  adopted  ;  officers  were  elected, 
revealing  a  tendency  of  the  Majority  Socialists,  the  Christian 
People's  party,  and  the  Democrats  to  work  together;  and  in 
four  days  a  law  was  passed  regularizing  and  expanding  the  pro- 
visional government,  with  a  view  to  tiding  over  the  period  until 
a  permanent  constitution  could  be  prepared  and  put  into  opera- 
tion. The  provisional  ministry,  presided  over  by  the  Chancellor, 
was  to  continue  as  the  supreme  executive  pi  >wer.  But  a  president 
of  the  republic  was  to  be  chosen  by  the  convention,  and  he  was 
ave  authority  to  name  the  members  of  the  ministry;  the 
ministers  were  to  be  responsible  to  the  convention  ;  in  initiating 
lative  measures  which  were  finally  to  be  acted  upon  by 
the  convention  itself  the  provisional  government  was  to  have 
the  advice  of  a  "committee  of  the  states,"  consisting  of  one  or 
more  representatives  of  all  German  states  having  a  popular  system 

1  W.  I!.  Munro  and  A.  X.  Holcombe  [trans.],  "Constitution  of  the  German  Com- 
monwealth," in  /  ations,  Dec,  1910,  p.  346. 

-This  place,  the  capital  <>f  the  little  grand  duchy  <>f  Sa\e-\Yeimar-Eisenach, 
was  selected  partly  because  of  its  association  with  the  besl  traditions  of  German 
liberalism,  as  represented  by  Goethe  and  Schiller,  and  partly  in  deference  to  the 
desire  of  the  south  Germans  that  the  convention  should  riol  be  held  in  Prussia.  The 
provisional  go^  1  1  nment,  fun  bermore,  « ished  to  shield  tin  gal  tiering  from  the  dis- 
orders to  which  Berlin  was  constantly  exposed. 


THE   REPUBLICAN   CONSTITUTION  719 

of  government.  Ebert  was  forthwith  elected  president,  and  at 
his  request  the  Majority  Socialist  Scheidemann  formed  a  cabi- 
net, which  proved  to  be  a  Majority  Socialist,  Christian  People's 
party,  Democratic  bloc  representing  seventy-seven  per  cent  of 
the  convention's  membership. 

Having  converted  the  purely  revolutionary  and  irresponsible 
government  of  Chancellor  Ebert  into  a  temporary  cabinet  govern- 
ment responsible  to  a  popular  assembly,  the  convention  proceeded 
to  its  larger  task  of  framing  a  permanent  republican  constitution. 
As  was  to  be  expected,  much  criticism  fell  upon  it  as  its  work 
progressed.  It  moved  too  slowly  to  please  some,  too  rapidly  to 
please  others.  There  was  a  widespread  disposition  to  expect  it 
to  accomplish  the  impossible.  The  ultra-radical  elements  pro- 
fessed to  see  in  it,  and  in  the  temporary  government  which  it  had 
set  up,  the  instrumentalities  of  reaction.1  At  the  same  time, 
large  sections  of  the  people  remained,  or  became,  quite  indifferent 
to  it.  Disregarding  strictures  from  without,  and  overcoming 
its  own  fatal  tendency  to  prolixity  such  as  had  destroyed  the  use- 
fulness of  the  Frankfort  convention  of  1848,  it  pushed  its  work  of 
constitution-making  to  a  conclusion  about  as  rapidly  as  the  grav- 
ity of  the  task  permitted.  The  proposed  instrument  was  dis- 
cussed on  first  reading  in  February  and  early  March,  in  committee 
from  March  to  June,  and  on  second  and  third  readings  during 
July.  On  July  31,  the  permanent  constitution  was  finally 
adopted,  by  a  vote  of  262  to  76,  and  on  August  n  it  was  put  into 
operation. 

The  provisional  organic  law  of  February  10  provided  for  no 
referendum  or  other  act  of  ratification,  so  that  the  decision  of 
the  convention  was  itself  definitive  ;  and  the  promulgation  of  the 
permanent  instrument  entailed  no  immediate  changes  in  the 
government.  Ebert  took  the  oath  of  office  on  the  new  basis,  the 
Bauer  ministry  went  on  unaffected,  and  the  Constituent  Assembly 
assumed  the  role  of  the  national  parliament.  The  task  of  con- 
stitution-making was  much  lightened  by  the  action  of  the  pro- 
visional government  in  appointing,  several  weeks  in  advance  of 
the  first  meeting,  a  commission  to  prepare  a  draft  of  a  constitu- 
tion as  a  basis  of  discussion.  The  commission  was  headed  by 
Professor  Hugo  Preuss,2  and  the  instrument  which  it  submitted 
for  the  consideration  of  the  delegates  at  Weimar,  while  not 

1  Because  of  his  unwillingness  to  accept  the  peace  terms  offered  by  the  Allies, 
Scheidemann  retired,  July  20,  and  a  new  coalition  ministry  was  formed  I  1 
Bauer,  former  minister  of  labor. 

2  Preuss  was  a  Democrat,  but  not  a  socialist.  He  occupied  the  post  of  secretary 
of  state  for  the  interior  under  the  revolutionary  government. 


72o  GOVERNMENTS   OB    EUROPE 

followed  in  all  of  its  natures,  afforded  a  good  starting  point  for 
the  debates.1 

The    New    Constitution.       The  republican   constitution  is  a 
lengthy  document,  arranged  in  a  preamble  and   181   articles. 

Chapter  I,  containing  108  articles,  deals  with  the  structure  and 
functions  of  the  governmental  system.     Chapter  II.  composed  "I 

57  articles,  deals  with  the  fundamental  rights  and  duties  of  Ger- 
man citizens.  A  third  division,  containing  t6  articles,  is  made  up 
of  "transitional  and  final"  regulations.  Not  merely  in  sheer 
length,  but  in  the  amount  of  detail  on  matters  either  unimportant 
in  themselves  or  of  such  character  as  to  be  commonly  left  to  be 
regulated  by  statute,  the  republican  constitution,  therefore,  re- 
sembles its  imperial  predecessor.  Thus,  thirteen  articlesare  de- 
voted to  railroads  and  internal  waterways,  as  compared  with  nine 
or  ten  in  the  imperial  constitution.  Nevertheless  the  new  consti- 
tution leaves  many  matters  to  be  determined  by  subsequent 
organic  laws,  for  whose  enactment  it  provides. 

The  most  striking  innovation  in  the  republican  constitution, 
so  far  as  content  goes,  is  the  extensive  provisions  designed  to 
define  and  protect  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  individual  citi- 
zen, and  also  the  relationships  of  citizens  in  recognized  social 
groups.  It  will  be  recalled  that,  aside  from  provision  for  a  com- 
mon German  citizenship  and  for  equal  protection  for  all  citizens 
as  against  foreign  powers,  the  imperial  constitution  was  silent 
on  the  subject  of  the  status  of  the  individual  ;  it  contained  noth- 
ing approaching  the  character  of  a  bill  of  rights.  In  marked 
contrast  is  the  prominence  given  these  matters  in  the  new  instru- 
ment. The  first  section  of  the  second  chapter  makes  all  Germans 
equal  before'the  law,  recognizes  men  and  women  as  having  funda- 
mentally the  same  civil  rights  and  duties,  abolishes  all  privileges 
arising  from  birth  or  rank,  provides  for  a  uniform  national  citi- 
zenship, recognizes  full  rights  of  domicile,  travel,  and  emigration ; 
declares  personal  liberty  inviolable,  makes  the  house  of  every  Ger- 

iOn  the  framing  of  the  constitution  see  G.  Saunders,  "The  New  German 
Constitution,"  in  New  Europe,  Feb.  13,  [919;  J.  Lescure,  "Les flections allemandes 
du  19  Janvier  a.  l'assemblee  nationals,"  in  Rev.  Polit.  et  Pari.,  Jan.,  10 10;  I.  Rouge, 
"Uneanneede  republique  en  Allemagne,"  ibid.,  Nov.  10,  [919;  C.  H.  Hubench, 
and  R.  King,  "The  New  System  of  German  Elections,"  in  N.  Y.  Saturn,  Feb.  22, 
1919;  VY.  II.  Dawson,  "The  Constitution  of  New  Germany,"  in  Fort.  Rev.,  Mar., 
1919;  F.  Meinecke,  "Verfassung  und  Verwaltung  der  deutschen  Republik,"  in 
Deutsche.  Rundschau,  Jan.,  1919;  R.  Fester,  "Die  Nationalversammlung  und  die 
Zukunft  Deutschlands,"  ibid.,  Mar.,  1919. 

2  The  best  English  version  is  thai  prepared  bv  Munroand  Holcombe  (seep.  718, 
note  1).  Other  translations  are  printed  in  Young,  The  New  Germany,  Appendix, 
and  N.  Y.  Times  Current  History,  Oct.,  19 19. 


THE   REPUBLICAN   CONSTITUTION  721 

man  his  sanctuary,  establishes  freedom  of  speech,  and  guarantees 
to  racial  minorities  the  unrestricted  use  of  their  mother  tongue 
in  schools,  courts,  and  administration.1  In  some  of  these  matters, 
it  is  fair  to  say,  exceptions  may  be  provided  for  by  law. 

A  section  entitled  "  community  life  "  guarantees  the  right  of 
peaceable  assembly,  of  organization  in  associations  not  contrary 
to  law,  and  of  petition ;  lays  upon  all  citizens  the  duty  of  ren- 
dering "  personal  services  to  the  state  and  the  municipality," 
of  contributing  according  to  their  means  to  the  financial  support 
of  all  public  burdens,  and,  under  conditions  to  be  prescribed  by 
law,  of  rendering  military  service ;  and  promises  legislation  for 
the  protection  of  motherhood,  for  assistance  to  families  with 
numerous  children,  and  for  preventing  the  exploitation,  and  as- 
suring the  moral,  mental,  and  physical  welfare,  of  youth.2  Other 
extensive  sections  devoted  to  religion  and  education  establish 
complete  freedom  of  belief  and  worship  and  of  organization  for 
religious  purposes,  cut  off  all  state  contributions  to  religious  socie- 
ties, provide  that  there  shall  be  no  state  church,  stipulate  that 
art,  science,  and  teaching  shall  be  free,  declare  education  a  func- 
tion in  which  nation,  state,  and  community  shall  cooperate,  make 
school  attendance  compulsory,  require  a  basic  course  of  instruc- 
tion covering  eight  years  with  supplementary  instruction  in  con- 
tinuation schools  up  to  the  age  of  eighteen,  provide  for  free 
instruction  and  school  supplies  in  both  elementary  and  continua- 
tion schools,  and  prescribe  that  "  all  schools  shall  inculcate  moral 
education,  civic  sentiment,  and  personal  and  vocational  efficiency 
in  the  spirit  of  German  national  culture  and  international  con- 
ciliation." 3 

A  final  section  of  this  portion  of  the  constitution  is  concerned 
with  economic  organization  and  life.  First  of  all,  certain  basic 
principles  are  laid  down :  justice  as  the  guiding  rule ;  economic 
liberty  in  so  far  as  not  inconsistent  with  the  demands  of  justice ; 
freedom  of  contract;  prohibition  of  usury;  right  of  private 
property ;  expropriation  only  for  the  benefit  of  the  community 
and  by  due  process  of  law;  right  of  inheritance,  qualified  by 
recognition  of  the  title  of  the  state  to  a  share.  The  distribution 
and  use  of  land  are  to  be  supervised  by  the  state  with  a  view  to 
preventing  misuse  and  "  insuring  to  every  German  a  healthful 
dwelling."     Private  property  in  land  remains.     But  unearned 

1Arts.  109-118.  Munro  and  Holcombe,  Constitution  of  the  German  Common- 
wealth, 382-384. 

2  Arts.  1 19-134.  Ibid.,  384-387- 

3  Arts.  135-150.  Ibid.,  387-392. 

3A 


722  GOVERNMENTS  01    El  ROPE 

increment  in  the  value  of  land  inures  to  the  benefit  of  "  the  com- 
munity as  a  \vh«.lc.  "  and  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  socializa- 
tion in  whatever  degree  the  state  may  i  are  to  undertake  it.  All 
mineral  resources  and  "economically  useful  forces  of  nature," 
e.g.,  water-power,  are  subject  to  th<  control  of  the  state;  and, 
by  giving  due  compensate  y  transfer  to  public 

ownership  "private  business  enterprises  adapted  for  socializa- 
tion." Finally,  labor  is  placed  under  the  special  protection  of 
the  state,  with  full  right  of  organization  for  the  promotion  and 
defense  of  its  interests;  and  provision  is  made  for  a  system  of 
workers'  councils  leading  up  to  a  National  Economic  Council 
which  shall  have  the  right  not  only  to  propose  social  and  economic 
laws  to  the  Reichstag,  or  National  Assembly,  but  to  give  pre- 
liminary consideration  to  government  bill-  of  this  t  haracter  before 
such  measures  are  presented  to  the  parliamentary  body.1  This 
portion  of  the  constitution,  therefore,  gives  the  new  system  the 
Llistic  slant  to  which  its  authorship  predestined  it,  and  like- 
wise shows  the  influence  of  the  Russian  soviet  idea. 

The  old  imperial  constitution  could  be  amended  in  exactly 
the  same  manner  in  which  ordinary  laws  were  adopted,  i.e.,  by 
simple  majority  vote  in  the  Bundesrath  and  Reichstag,  save  for 
the  limitation  that  any  amendment  was  considered  as  rejected  if 
as  many  as  fourteen  votes  were  cast  against  it  in  the  Bundesrath. 
The  new  constitution  also  provides  for  its  amendment  by  a  process 
similar  to  that  of  ordinary  legislation.  Two  thirds  of  the  legal 
membership  of  the  Reichstag,  or  National  Assembly,  must, 
however,  be  present  when  an  amendment  is  voted  on,  and  a  two- 
thirds  majority  of  the  votes  cast  is  necessary  for  adoption; 
a  two-thirds  vote  in  the  Reichsrath,  or  National  Council,  com- 
pletes the  process,  and  the  president  promulgates  the  measure. 
In  case,  however,  the  National  Council  rejects  an  amendment 
which  the  Assembly  has  voted,  two  weeks  are  allowed  in  which 
the  dissenting  body  can  demand  a  referendum.  If  no  demand  is 
made,  the  amendment  is  promulgated  at  the  end  of  the  period  ; 
if  a  demand  is  made,  the  measure's  fate  is  determined  by  the 
voters.  Furthermore,  an  amendment  may  be  proposed  by  the 
ile  and  voted  by  them,  regardless  of  the  will  of  the  representa- 
tive bodies.  Whether  the  proposal  submitted  emanates  from  the 
National  Assembly  or  from  the  people  themselves,  the  assent 
of  a  majority  of  the  qualified  voters  is  necessary  for  adoption.2 

i  Arc-,  i  Monro  ami  Holcombe,  Constitution,  392~396- 

-  Art.  76.     Ibtd.,  372-373.     The  constitution  leaves  t!i«-  details  of  the  referen- 
dum and  initiative  to  be  regulated  by  a  national  law. 


THE  REPUBLICAN   CONSTITUTION  723 

Joining  as  it  does  the  referendum  and  the  initiative  with  action 
by  the  legislative  bodies,  the  amending  process  bears  closer  re- 
semblance to  that  in  operation  in  Switzerland  than  to  any  other 
in  western  Europe.  1 

The  Governmental  System :  General  Aspects.  —  On  turning  to 
the  governmental  system  provided  for  in  the  new  constitution, 
one  encounters  an  initial  difficulty  in  the  terminology  employed. 
One  meets  at  every  turn  the  old  names  —  "  Reichstag,"  "  Reichs- 
rath,"  "  Reichskanzler,"  "  Reichsgericht."  The  term  Reich 
means  "  empire,"  or  in  adjectival  use  "  imperial ;  "  at  all  events, 
this  was  its  signification  before  1918.  Under  the  new  constitu- 
tion Germany  is,  however,  a  republic,  and  all  of  its  institu- 
tions are  presumably  republican.  Hence  "  Reich  "  must  now  be 
translated  by  some  term  consistent  with  republicanism ;  and  the 
best  that  has  been  found  is  "  commonwealth." 

A  more  serious  difficulty  arises  when  one  attempts  to  determine 
whether  the  new  governmental  system  is  federal  or  unitary. 
The  plan  prepared  by  the  Preuss  commission  was  clearly  federal. 
Prussia  was  to  be  split  up  into  seven  or  eight  states,  the  smaller 
existing  states  were  to  be  combined  into  about  the  same  number, 
and  the  new  group  (fifteen  in  all)  were  to  be  erected  into  a  federal 
republic,  with  an  elected  president  and  a  bicameral  parliament. 
The  forces  of  particularism  were,  however,  too  powerful  to  permit 
such  a  scheme  to  be  adopted,  and  the  Constituent  Assembly  left 
the  old  state  boundaries  intact,  except,  of  course,  in  so  far  as  altera- 
tions of  the  exterior  border  lines  were  provided  for  in  the  treaty 
of  peace  signed  June  28,  1919.2  The  new  governmental  system  [ 
not  only  assumes  but  requires  the  existence  of  states.  It  is  im-  * 
portant  to  note  carefully,  however,  the  position  which  these  polit- 
ical divisions  are  expected  to  occupy.  The  outstanding  fact  is 
their  subordination  to  the  Commonwealth  as  a  whole,  especially 
as  compared  with  the  semi-autonomy  prevailing  under  the  former 
Empire.  In  the  first  place,  every  state  must  have  a  republican 
form  of  government,  with  representative  assemblies  (both  state 
and  municipal)  elected  by  "  the  universal,  equal,  direct,  and  secret 

1  The  salient  features  of  the  republican  constitution  are  described  in  W.  J.  Shep- 
ard,  "The  New  German  Constitution,"  in  Amcr.  Polit.  Set.  Rev.,  Feb.,  1920;  E. 
Freund,  "The  New  German  Constitution,"  in  Polit.  Sei.  Qitar.,  June,  1920;  and 
I.  Rouge,  "La  nouvelle  constitution  allemande,"  in  Rev.  Polit.  el  Pari.,  Mar.  10, 
1920.  A  brief  commentary  is  F.  Stier-Somlo,  Die  Vcrfassungsurkunde  der  Vereinig- 
ten  Staaten  von  Deatschland  (Tubingen,  1919). 

2  These  alterations  were  stipulated  in  Articles  27-30  of  the  treaty.  Upwards  of 
30,000  square  miles  were  lost  unconditionally,  and  the  status  of  about  7000  square 
miles  more  was  made  contingent  upon  the  outcome  of  a  number  of  plebiscites. 
The  total  area  of  Germany  before  the  war  was  208,834  square  miles. 


724  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

suffrage  of  all  German  citizens,  both  men  and  women,  according 
to  the  principles  of  proportional  representation,"  and  with  a  re- 
sponsible cabinet.1  In  the  second  pla<  e,  state  boundaries  may  be 
altered  and  new  states  may  be  created,  even  againsl  the  will  of 
tin-  states  affected.  If  the  states  directly  concerned  give  their 
consent,  these  alteration-  can  be  made  by  ordinary  law.  An 
ordinary  law  suffices  also  if  one  of  the  states  affected  does  not  give 
onsent,  provided  the  action  "  i-  desired  by  the  population 
concerned  [to  be  ascertained  by  a  referendum]  and  is  also  required 
by  a  preponderant  national  interest."  But  in  any  case  the  change 
can  l»e  made  by  a  eonstitutional  amendment.2 

A  third  limitation  upon  the  freedom  of  the  states  arises  from 
the  distribution  of  governmental  powers.  The  principle  upon 
which  this  distribution  is  made  is  the  same  as  that  prevailing  in 
the  former  Empire,  in  Switzerland,  in  Australia,  and  in  the  United 
States;  that  is  to  say,  the  powers  of  the  central,  national  govern- 
ment  are  enumerated,  while  those  of  the  divisional  governments 
are  residual.  But  the  distribution  amply  illustrates  the  well- 
known  centripetal  or  unitary  tendency  in  contemporary  federal 
systems;  for  the  powers  given  the  Commonwealth  government 
far  exceed  those  belonging  to  the  former  Empire.  Exclusive 
jurisdiction  is  conferred  over  foreign  relations,  colonial  affairs, 
citizenship,  immigration,  naturalization,  extradition,  national 
defense,  coinage,  customs,  postal  service,  telegraphs,  and  tele- 
phones.3 Full  control  over  taxation  and  other  sources  of  income 
is  granted  also,  subject  only  to  the  stipulation  that  if  the  Common- 
wealth claims  any  source  of  revenue  which  formerly  belonged  to 
the  states,  it  must  "  have  consideration  for  the  financial  require- 
ments of  the  states."  The  Commonwealth  may  prescribe  by 
law  fundamental  principles  concerning  "  the  validity  and  mode 
of  collection  of  state  taxes,"  in  order  to  prevent  injury  to  its 
own  revenues,  double  taxation,  the  imposition  of  excessive 
burdens,  export  bounties,  and  tax  discriminations  by  one  state 
against  the  products  of  other  states.1  Then  there  is  a  long  list 
of  matters  over  which  the  Commonwealth  has  any  amount  of 
jurisdiction  that  it  may  see  fit  to  exercise,  subject  only  to  the 
general  condition  that  so  long  and  in  so  far  as  it  does  not  exercise 
such  jurisdiction,  control  remains  in  the  states.  Prominent  in 
this  list  are  :  civil  law,  criminal  law,  judicial  procedure,  the  press, 
poor  relief,  public  health,  all  forms  of  insurance,  labor  legisla- 
tion, pensions,  weights  and  measures,  paper  currency,  banking, 

1  Art.  17.     Munro  and  Eolcombe,  Constitution,  358. 

2  Art.  18.    Ibid., 35^  \rt  6.    rbid.,354.  'Arts.  8,11.    //«'<*.,  355-356. 


THE  REPUBLICAN   CONSTITUTION  725 

industry,  mining,  railroads  and  internal  communications  of  all 
kinds,  navigation,  fisheries,  and  the  socialization  of  natural  re- 
sources and  business  enterprises.1 

In  the  next  place,  the  constitution  expressly  establishes  the 
supremacy  of  the  laws  of  the  Commonwealth  over  the  laws  of 
the  states  which  are  in  conflict  with  them  and  provides  that  in 
case  of  difference  of  opinion  recourse  shall  be  had  to  the  decision 
of  a  supreme  judicial  court  of  the  Commonwealth.2  Finally, 
the  president  is  authorized  to  compel  a  state,  by  force  of  arms 
if  necessary,  to  perform  the  duties  imposed  upon  it  by  the  con- 
stitution and  by  national  law.3  Under  the  imperial  constitu- 
tion there  was  a  similar  power  of  "  execution,"  which  was  exer- 
cised by  the  Emperor  on  decision  of  the  Bundesrath. 

These  are  some  of  the  evidences  of  the  subordination  of  the 
states  in  the  new  republican  system.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Commonwealth  constitution  clearly  recognizes  the  states  as 
having  a  field  or  sphere  of  their  own.  "  Political  authority," 
it  says,  "  is  exercised  in  national  affairs  by  the  national  govern- 
ment in  accordance  with  the  constitution  of  the  Commonwealth, 
and  in  state  affairs  by  the  state  governments  in  accordance  with 
the  state  constitutions."4  Large  concurrent  and  residual  powers 
are  left  to  the  states.  The  states  have  the  unusual  right  to  send 
plenipotentiaries  to  sittings  of  the  National  Assembly  and  of  its 
committees,  as  a  means  of  submitting  the  views  of  their  cabinets 
on  the  matters  under  consideration.  Furthermore,  the  states 
as  such  are  represented  in  the  National  Council,  as  they  formerly 
were  in  the  Bundesrath. 

Applying  the  true  test  of  federal  government,  i.e.,  a  distribution 
of  powers  on  a  territorial  basis  by  a  sovereign  authority  through 
the  medium  of  a  constitution  which  is  subject  to  alteration  by  the 
unilateral  action  of  neither  the  central  government  nor  the  di- 
visional governments,  the  new  German  system  fails  to  qualify, 
for  the  reason  that  the  constitution,  and  therefore  the  distribu- 
tion of  powers  effected  by  it,  can  be  changed  to  any  extent  by  the 
government  of  the  Commonwealth  ;  the  states  have  no  guarantee 
of  their  powers  —  nor,  indeed,  of  their  very  existence  —  as  against 
that  government.  Fundamentally,  the  system  is,  therefore, 
unitary ;  although  the  historic  federal  stamp  is  far  from  having 
been  completely  erased. 

1  Arts.  7,  12.     Munro  and  Holcombe,  Constitution,  354-356. 

2  Art.  13.  Ibid.,  357.  Compare  Art.  6,  Sect.  2,  of  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  likewise  the  power  of  the  federal  Supreme  Court  to  pronounce  final 
judgment  on  the  constitutionality  of  state  laws. 

3  Art.  48.     Ibid.,  365.  4Art.  5.      Ibid.,  354. 


726  GOVERNMEN  rs  OF   EUROPE 

The  Reichstag,  or  National  Assembly.       The  Reichstag  w.i 
the  only  popular  element  in  the  imperial  governmental  system, 
and  it  was  natural  that  this  institution  should  be  carried  over 
into  the  new  regime  with  comparatively  few  changes  of  form. 

Not  even  the  name  was  discarded,  although,  taken  literally,  it 
is  incongruous  with  republicanism.     For  the  sake  of  clearness, 

it  is  wise  to  employ,  rather,  the  term  National  Assembly.  The 
changes  which  were  made  in  the  body  (and  they  are  supremely 
important)  relate  to  two  matters  principally  maimer  of 
tion  and  powers.  Details  of  the  new  electoral  system  were  left 
ti>  he  regulated  by  a  later  law.  But,  in  harmony  with  the  provi- 
sional government's  pronouncement  of  November  i?,  igiS,1 
the  constitution  requires  all  to  be  chosen  by  "uni- 

versal, equal,  direct,  and  secret  suffrage  by  all  men  and  women 
over  twenty  years  of  age,  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of 
proportional  representation/'-  The  term  is  four  years,  although 
the  body  may  be  dissolved  —  not  exceeding  once  for  the  same 
cause  —  by  presidential  decree.  Disputed  elections  are  decided, 
not  by  the  Assembly  itself,  but  by  an  electoral  commission  con- 
sisting partly  of  delegates  selected  by  the  Assembly  from  its  own 
membership  and  partly  of  members  of  the  National  Adminis- 
trative Court,  to  be  appointed  by  the  president  of  the  Common- 
wealth on  nomination  of  the  president  of  the  court.3  The  As- 
sembly elects  its  own  officers  and  regulates  its  own  procedure, 
and  the  members  are  protected  by  the  customary  legislative 
immunities.  Aside  from  control  over  the  executive  authorities 
(which  will  be  explained  below),  the  Assembly  has  two  principal 
powers,  constituent  and  legislative.  It  adopts  constitutional 
amendments ;  although,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  its  acts  of  this 
character  may  be  overruled  by  a  popular  vote,  and  amendments 
can  be  popularly  initiated  and  adopted  without  its  assent.  Its 
control  over  legislation  is  similarly  limited  by  the  operation  of 
the  popular  initiative  and  referendum. 

Bills  are  introduced  either  by  the  Rcichsrcgicrun^.  or  Cabinet, 
or  by  members  of  the  Assembly;  and  after  passage  in  tl 
sembly  they  take  effect  at  the  expiration  of  fourteen  days, 
providing  the  National  Council  concurs,  or  providing  the  Assem- 
bly, on  reconsideration,  disapproves  by  a  two-thirds  majority 
the  objection  of  the  National  Council,  and  the  president  of  the 
republic  chooses  not  to  avail  himself  of  his  right  in  this  case  to 

•Seep.  717. 

'-'  Art.  22.     Munro  and  Holcombe,  Constitution,  359. 

3  Art.  31.     Ibid.,  361. 


THE  REPUBLICAN  CONSTITUTION  727 

submit  the  measure  in  hand  to  a  popular  referendum.  All  meas- 
ures upon  which  the  two  bodies  cannot  agree  may  be  submitted 
by  the  president  to  a  referendum.  Furthermore,  a  measure  whose 
promulgation  is  deferred  at  the  demand  of  at  least  one  third  of 
the  National  Assembly  must  be  submitted  if  one  twentieth  of  the 
qualified  voters  so  petition.  An  act  of  the  Assembly  may, 
however,  be  annulled  by  a  popular  vote  only  if  there  is  a  majority 
against  it  and  if  a  majority  of  those  qualified  take  part  in  the  vote. 
Finally,  bills  may  be  both  popularly  initiated  and  popularly 
adopted.  A  legislative  proposal,  which  must  take  the  form 
of  a  draft  bill,  may  be  initiated  by  one  tenth  of  the  qualified 
voters,  and  the  cabinet  is  required  to  submit  all  such  proposals 
to  the  Assembly,  with  a  statement  of  its  views  thereon.  If  the 
Assembly  approves,  the  proposal  forthwith  becomes  law;  if 
it  does  not  approve,  the  measure  is  submitted  to  a  popular 
vote.1 

The  Reichsrath,  or  National  Council.— The  framers  of  the  con- 
stitution inevitably  encountered  the  eternal  problem  of  a  second 
chamber.  Three  obvious  solutions  suggested  themselves:  to 
create  a  senate,  coordinate  in  function  and  power  with  the  Na- 
tional Assembly ;  to  adopt  the  unicameral  principle  and  establish 
no  second  body  at  all;  and  to  carry  over  the  old  Bundesrath, 
adapting  it  to  the  spirit  and  purposes  of  the  new  order.  The 
Preuss  commission  recommended  the  first  course,  but  the  As- 
sembly decided  in  favor  of  the  third ;  and  provision  was  made 
for  a  Reichsrath,  or  National  Council,  which,  like  the  old  Bundes- 
rath, should  represent  the  states  as  such,  rather  than  the  people 
directly.  As  in  the  Bundesrath,  representation  in  the  National 
Council  is  conferred  in  terms  of  votes  rather  than  members; 
although  the  states  are  expressly  given  the  right  to  send  as  many 
representatives  as  they  have  votes.  Each  state  having  a  popula- 
tion under  one  million  is  entitled  to  one  vote ;  each  having  a  popu- 
lation of  more  than  that  number  is  entitled  to  a  vote  for  each  mil- 
lion people,  and  to  an  additional  vote  for  any  fraction  thereof  which 
equals  the  number  of  inhabitants  of  the  least  populous  state.2 
But  no  state  may  have  more  than  two  fifths  of  all  votes.  The 
last-mentioned  provision  has  bearing,  of  course,  only  in  connec- 
tion with  Prussia,  and  is  designed  to  keep  witliin  bounds  the  pre- 
dominance of  that  member  of  the  union.     It  is  to  be  observed, 

1  Arts.  73-75.     Munro  and  Holcombe,  Constitution,  371-372. 

2  A  clause  of  Art.  61  providing  for  the  representation  of  German  Austria  in  the 
National  Council  was  stricken  out  at  the  demand  of  the  Supreme  Council  of  the 
Allied  and  Associated  Powers,  on  the  ground  that  it  contemplated  an  arrangement 
incompatible  with  Austrian  independence. 


728  G0\  ERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

however,  that  whereas  Prussia's  sev  enteen  votes  in  the  old  Bundes- 
rath  formed  but  slightly  more  than  twenty-nine  per  cent  of  the 

total,1  the  present  rule  permits  a  maximum  of  forty  per  cent. 
Votes  arc  distributed  afresh  by  the  National  Council  after  each 
general  census.  The  states  are  required  to  be  represented  in  the 
Council  by  members  of  their  cabinets.  Here  again  there  is  no 
important  change,  because  by  custom  the  state,  were  as  a  rule 
represented  in  the  former  Bundesrath  by  members  of  their  gov- 
ernments. With  a  view  to  a  certain  disintegration  of  the  Prus- 
sian quota,  it  is  stipulated  that  half  of  the  Prussian  votes  shall 
be  at  the  disposal  of  the  provincial  administrations  of  that 
state.2 

So  far  as  the  formal  provisions  of  the  constitution  define 
them,  the  powers  of  the  National  Council  can  be  stated  briefly ; 
only  some  years  of  experience  can  show  what  they  will  amount  to 
in  practice.  They  relate  to  two  chief  matters  —  constitutional 
amendments  and  legislation.  The  role  of  the  Council  in  amend- 
ing the  constitution  has  been  explained  elsewhere.3  The  body 
has  no  absolute  veto  on  amendments  as  passed  by  the  National 
Assembly,  but  it  can  require  them  to  be  submitted  to  a  popular 
referendum.  The  legislative  function  is  more  extensive,  although, 
speaking  broadly,  it  comes  to  substantially  the  same  thing.  In 
the  first  place,  the  Council  cooperates  with  the  cabinet  in  initiat- 
ing and  giving  preliminary  consideration  to  legislative  measures. 
It  has  a  right  to  be  consulted  on  every  bill  which  the  ministers 
propose  to  present  to  the  National  Assembly,  although  its  dissent 
need  not  restrain  the  ministers  from  their  purpose.  Furthermore, 
it  may  submit  to  the  cabinet  legislative  proposals  of  its  own,  and 
the  cabinet  must  pass  them  on  to  the  Assembly,  with  or  without 
its  approval. 

The  second  main  legislative  function  comes  into  play  after  the 
Assembly  has  passed  a  bill.  The  Council  then  has  a  right  to 
interpose  objection  and  to  cause  the  measure  to  be  remanded  to 
the  Assembly  for  reconsideration.  If  an  agreement  is  reached 
between  the  two  bodies,  the  bill  becomes  law.  If  the  Assembly 
disagrees  with  the  Council  by  a  two-thirds  majority,  the  measure 
likewise  becomes  law,  unless  the  president  of  the  Commonwealth 
chooses  to  submit  it  to  a  popular  referendum  and  the  people  re- 
ject it.     On  the  other  hand,  if  the  Assembly  disagrees  with  the 

'  disregarding  the  three  non-Prussian  votes  which  were  controlled  by  the  Prus- 
sian government,  and  also  the  three  restricted  votes  of  Alsace-Lorraine. 
2  Art.  63.     Munro  and  Holcombe,  Constitution,  369. 
1  See  p.  722. 


THE  REPUBLICAN  CONSTITUTION  729 

Council,  but  not  by  a  two-thirds  majority,  the  measure  does  not 
become  law  unless  the  president  submits  it  to  a  referendum  and 
the  people  approve  it.1  The  Council,  therefore,  has,  in  addition 
to  the  right  to  initiate  bills,  a  suspensive  veto ;  but  it  has  no 
veto  which  cannot  be  overcome,  either  by  the  Assembly  itself 
or  by  the  people  through  the  medium  of  the  referendum.  In 
short,  the  Council  is  a  checking  and  revising  authority,  which  is 
designed  to  serve  most  of  the  purposes  of  a  second  chamber  else- 
where, but  it  is  not  a  coordinate  branch  of  the  legislature ;  the 
National  Assembly  is,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a  unicameral 
parliament.  The  reversal  of  the  old  relation  between  Reichs- 
tag and  Bundesrath  is  so  obvious  as  to  require  no  comment. 

The  Executive :  President  and  Cabinet.  —  The  ideal  of  the 
liberal  forces  had  long  been  a  system  of  government  based  upon 
cabinet  responsibility,  and  in  the  new  constitution  this  ideal  found 
full  expression.  The  titulary  executive  became  a  national  presi- 
dent ;  the  working  executive,  a  group  of  ministers  appointed  by 
the  titulary  head  and  responsible  to  the  National  Assembly  for 
all  of  the  acts  of  the  government.  The  president  is  chosen  by 
direct  vote  of  the  people  for  a  term  of  seven  years,  and  is  indef- 
initely re-eligible.  His  tenure  is,  therefore,  like  that  of  the  presi- 
dent of  France  ;  furthermore,  as  in  that  country,  there  is  no  vice- 
president,  so  that  if  the  office  falls  vacant  prematurely,  a  new 
president  is  forthwith  elected,  and  for  a  seven-year  term.  The 
most  novel  aspect  of  the  presidential  tenure  is  the  power  of  the 
National  Assembly  to  suspend  the  chief  executive  by  a  two-thirds 
vote,  and  of  the  people,  in  pursuance  of  the  Assembly's  action, 
to  remove  him  by  simple  majority.  Like  the  chancellor  and  min- 
isters, the  president  can  be  impeached  by  the  National  Assembly 
before  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court  of  the  Commonwealth ; 
but,  in  addition,  he  is  subject  to  the  popular  "  recall."  The 
powers  assigned  the  president  make  up  an  imposing  list  —  to 
appoint  and  remove  all  civil  and  military  officers  of  the  Common- 
wealth, to  execute  the  laws  and  maintain  public  order,  to  send 
and  receive  ambassadors,  to  make  treaties  (subject  to  the  ap- 
proval of  the  National  Assembly) ,  to  command  the  armed  forces, 
to  exercise  the  power  of  pardon,  to  decide  under  given  circum- 
stances whether  to  submit  acts  of  the  National  Assembly  to 
a  popular  vote.  But  this  enumeration  of  functions  is  followed 
immediately  in  the  constitution  by  a  stipulation  that  "  all  orders 
and  directions  of  the  national  president,  including  those  concern- 
ing the  armed  forces,  require  for  their  validity  the  countersig- 

1  Arts.  69,  74.     Munro  and  Holcombe,  Constitution,  371-372. 


7.}o  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

nature  of  the  national  chancellor  or  of  the  appropriate  national 
minister.  By  the  countersignature  responsibility  is  assumed,"1 
This  provision,  of  course,  takes  from  the  president  the  exercise 
of  the  several  powers  in  person,  relieves  him  of  responsibility 

for  what  is  done  under  them,  and  in  short,  institutes  a  cabinet 
system. 
Theheadof  the  ministry,  or  cabinet, is  thechancellor  ;  the  name, 

antedating  as  it  does  the  fallen  Empire,  has  apparently  established 
itself  permanently  in  German  political  terminology.  The  new 
chancellorship  is,  however,  entirely  unlike  the  old.  The  chancel- 
lor is  now  only  primus  inter  pares  as  regards  his  colleagues  ; 
in  other  words,  his  status  is  not  different  in  any  important  respect 
from  that  of  the  premier  in  cabinet  systems  of  government  else- 
where. The  chancellor  is  named  by  the  president ;  he  selects  the 
remaining  ministers,  who,  however,  are  legally  appointed  by  the 
president ;  and  a  familiar  and  essential  feature  of  the  cabinet 
system  is  brought  to  view  in  the  provision  that  "  the  national 
chancellor  and  the  national  ministers  require  for  the  administra- 
tion of  their  offices  the  confidence  of  the  National  Assembly ; 
each  of  them  must  resign  if  the  National  Assembly  by  formal  reso- 
lution withdraws  its  confidence.'"-  In  Great  Britain,  France, 
and  Italy  the  maintenance  of  harmonious  relations  between  the 
ministry  and  the  parliamentary  majority  is  entirely  a  matter  of 
custom  and  convenience;  in  Germany  alone,  among  European 
states,  is  it  expressly  enjoined  by  the  written  constitution.  On 
the  question  whether  the  chancellor  and  ministers  are  to  be  ap- 
pointed from  the  membership  of  the  Assembly  or  from  outside, 
and  whether,  in  the  former  case,  they  shall  remain  members  of  the 
body  after  appointment,  the  constitution  is  silent.3  However, 
the  written  constitutions  of  other  cabinet-governed  European 
states  also  contain  nothing  on  the  subject,  and  it  is  reasonable 
to  expect  that  in  Germany  as  elsewhere  the  rule  will  gradually 
establish  itself  that,  with  rare  exceptions,  the  ministers  shall  be 
at  the  time  of  their  appointment,  or  shall  promptly  become,  mem- 
bers of  the  legislative  body.  Meanwhile  the  constitution  gives 
the  chancellor  and  all  ministers  a  right  to  be  present  at  sittings 
of  the  National  Assembly  and  of  its  committees,  to  take  part 
in  the  proceedings  of  the  National  Council  and  of  its  committees,4 

1  Art.  50.     Munro  and  Ilolcombc,  Constitution,  366. 

2  Art.  54.     Ibid.,  367. 

3  The  president,  however,  is  forbidden  (Art.  44)  to  be  "at  the  same  time  a  member 
of  the  National  Assembly." 

4  All  chairmanships  of  the  Council  and  its  committees  are  held  by  cabinet  mem- 
bers. 


THE  REPUBLICAN  CONSTITUTION  731 

and  to  introduce  bills  in  the  one  body  and  to  make  proposals 
in  the  other. 

With  a  view  to  ensuring  the  ultimate  supremacy  of  the  National 
Assembly  over  the  executive  authorities,  the  constitution  pro- 
vides not  only  for  ministerial  responsibility  and  for  the  retire- 
ment of  ministries  whenever  they  lose  the  Assembly's  confidence, 
but  also  for  investigations  and  impeachments  on  the  Assembly's 
initiative.  One  fifth  of  the  members  can  cause  to  be  created  a 
committee  of  investigation,  with  full  power  to  require  the  admin- 
istrative and  judicial  authorities  to  give  testimony  and  submit 
documentary  evidence.1  One  hundred  members  can  require  the 
Assembly  to  take  up  the  question  of  impeaching  the  national 
president,  the  chancellor,  or  any  minister,  and  in  the  event 
of  a  two-thirds  majority  in  favor  of  the  proposal,  the  proceedings 
are  to  be  formally  instituted  before  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court. 
The  constitution  leaves  the  details  of  impeachment  procedure  to 
be  regulated  by  a  national  law.  But  it  prescribes  as  ground  for 
impeachment  "  any  wrongful  violation  of  the  constitution  or 
laws  of  the  Commonwealth."2 

The  Judiciary.  —  The  imperial  constitution,  as  amended 
in  1873,  vested  in  the  Empire  power  of  general  legislation  con- 
cerning the  entire  domain  of  civil  and  criminal  law,  and  of  judicial 
procedure,  but  made  no  provision  for  a  system  of  courts ;  and  until 
1 91 9  such  imperial  courts  as  existed  —  chiefly  the  Reichsgericht, 
created  in  1879  —  rested  solely  upon  statute.  Each  state  had  its 
own  judicial  system,  and  justice  was.  administered  almost  en- 
tirely in  state  courts.  The  republican  constitution  devotes  an 
entire  section3  to  the  subject.  It  assumes  the  perpetuation  of  the 
state  judicial  systems,  but  it  contemplates  a  parallel  hierarchy 
of  national  courts,  both  judicial  and  administrative,  which  might 
conceivably  come  to  resemble  (save  for  the  presence  of  adminis- 
trative tribunals)  the  judicial  machinery  of  the  United  States. 
Only  two  specific  national  tribunals  are  mentioned  —  a  Reichs- 
gericht, or  National  Judicial  Court,  and  a  Staatsgerichtshof,  or 
Supreme  Judicial  Court.  But  others  might  be  added,  by  con- 
stitutional amendment,  or  even  by  statute.  Of  equal  importance 
are  certain  provisions  designed  to  secure  both  the  independence 
of  the  judiciary  and  the  protection  of  the  individual  citizen. 
Judges  are  declared  free  and  subject  only  to  law ;  those  attached 
to  the  ordinary  courts  are  appointed  for  life  and  may  not  be  re- 
moved from  office  or  transferred  or  retired  against  their  will, 

1  Art.  34.     Munro  and  Holcombe,  Constitution,  362. 

2  Art.  59.     Ibid.,  367-368.  3  Arts.  102-108.    Ibid.,  380-381. 


732  GOVERNMEN  rs  OF    EUROPE 

except  by  virtue  of  a  judicial  decision  and  for  the  reason  and  in 
the  manner  prescribed  by  law.  Finally,  extraordinary  courts 
are  pronounced  illegal ;  Litigants  are  guaranteed  against  removal 
from  the  jurisdiction  of  their  lawful  judges  ;  military  jurisdiction 
is  abolished  except  in  time  of  war  and  <»n  hoard  war  vessel-; 
and  the  citizen  is  to  be  protected  against  orders  and  decrees  of 
the  administrative  authorities  by  administrative  courts,  both 
national  and  state. 

The  Constitution  on  Trial:  Elections  of  1920.  —  These  pages 
were  written  less  than  a  year  after  the  constitution  herein  outlined 
was  put  into  operation.  Hence  there  was  no  sufficient  basis  of 
experience  for  an  evaluation  of  the  new  system  as  a  working  plan 
of  government,  or  for  a  forecast  of  its  durability  and  growth. 
The  first  impression  that  one  receives  from  a  survey  of  the  re- 
public's political  history  in  the  period  is  that  of  remarkable 
confusion;  and  this  effect  is  heightened,  rather  than  otherwise, 
by  closer  scrutiny.  Party  lines  constantly  shift;  unknown 
figures  rise  to  sudden  prominence;  old  leaders  crop  up  in  unex- 
pected places;  the  forces  of  radicalism,  moderate  liberalism,  and 
reaction  interplay  in  startling,  and  sometimes  inexplicable,  man- 
ner ;  prone  to  theoretic  discussion  and  untrained  in  the  art  of 
government,  the  great  body  of  the  people  finds  it  hard  to  come 
together  in  dependable  support  of  a  plan  of  action. 

Partly  as  a  result  of  these  conditions,  the  Ebert  government 
was,  by  general  admission,  weak  and  unstable.  But  there  were 
other  causes.  One  was  the  mediocrity  of  leadership  in  govern- 
ment circles.  With  a  few  conspicuous  exceptions,  the  men  in  the 
higher  offices  were  not  only  inexperienced  but  of  very  limited 
ability.1  Another  cause  was  the  retention  in  the  various  adminis- 
trative services  of  great  numbers  of  functionaries  who  were  mon- 
archistically  inclined  and  entirely  out  of  sympathy  with  the  new 
order.  The  bureaucracy  lived  on  practically  as  before,  and  was 
a  source  of  continual  embarrassment  for  the  government;  al- 
though it  is  not  clear  that  the  ministers  could  have  cleaned  house 
in  the  departments  without  stirring  up  equally  serious  troubles 
of  a  different  sort.  Reaction  repeatedly  lifted  its  head,  and  in 
March,  1920,  the  government  was  temporarily  driven  from  Berlin 
by  a  coup  which  brought  the  militarist  von  Kapp  into  the  chan- 
cellorship and  his  coadjutor  Baron  von  Liittwitz  into  the  post  of 
minister  of  defense  formerly  occupied  by  General  Noske.     The 

1  A  somewhat  satirical  estimate,  by  a  Berlin  journalist,  of  the  chief  figures  in 
German  public  life  in  1918-20  will  be  found  in  E.  Dombrowski,  German  Leaders  of 
Yesterday  and  To-day  (New  York,  1020). 


THE  REPUBLICAN  CONSTITUTION  733 

country,  however,  was  not  in  the  mood  for  a  civil  war,  and  by 
calling  a  general  strike  the  legitimate  government  quickly  roused 
the  working  classes  to  its  defense  and  regained  control.1  The 
counter-revolution  failed ;  but  the  monarchist,  militarist  elements, 
far  from  accepting  their  defeat  as  final,  merely  concluded  that 
the  time  for  the  restoration  was  not  yet  ripe. 

As  an  aid  to  regaining  control,  the  Ebert  government  promised 
that  the  existing  Assembly,  originally  chosen  in  January,  19 19, 
to  frame  the  constitution,  should  be  promptly  supplanted  by  an 
Assembly  elected  under  the  constitution  for  the  regular  four-year 
period;  and  the  new  body  was  duly  chosen  on  June  6.  The 
contest  brought  out  a  number  of  interesting  facts,  about  the  party 
situation.  The  first  was  that  the  two  parties  of  the  Right  —  the 
National  People's  party  (old  Conservatives)  and  the  People's 
party  (former  National  Liberals)  were  not  only  intensely  national- 
ist, strongly  anti-socialist,  and  bitterly  antisemitic,  but  decidedly 
monarchist.  The  former  frankly  avowed  its  monarchism  by 
demanding  "  the  restoration  of  the  German  Imperial  monarchy 
(Kaisertum)  established  by  the  Hohenzollerns,"  although  it 
shrewdly  refrained  from  calling  for  the  restoration  of  the  ex- 
Kaiser  himself,  or  even  of  a  Hohenzollern.  The  latter  still  pro- 
fessed to  be  republican,  but  in  phrases  that  were  discounted  both 
by  opponents  and  by  unbiased  observers.  The  Nationalists 
pronounced  the  Ebert  regime  a  failure,  declared  democracy 
bankrupt,  urged  a  government  of  experts  rather  than  of  poli- 
ticians, and  advocated  a  close  alliance  of  church  and  state.  The 
People's  group  held  practically  the  same  opinions,  but  talked  less 
freely  about  them.  Both  parties  were  very  strong  in  the  army ; 
both  were  compromised  by  the  von  Kapp  coup;  both  were 
suspected  of  favoring  a  military  dictatorship. 

The  Christian  People's  party  (the  old  Center)  occupied  an 
intermediate  position,  but  not  without  difficulty.  Its  left 
wing,  led  by  Erzberger,  and  its  conservative  element,  led  by 
Trimborn,  were  in  serious  disagreement ;  besides,  its  unity  was 
menaced  by  the  opposition  of  the  federalists  to  the  growing  cen- 
tralization of  the  government  —  a  feeling  which,  indeed,  led  the 
Bavarian  Centrum  to  secede  and  to  form  a  separate  Bavarian 
Christian  People's  party.  The  second  member  of  the  govern- 
ment bloc,  the  Democrats,  stood  firm  in  support  of  the  new  con- 
stitution as  "  the  noblest  and  freest  in  the  world,"  although  its 

1  H.  N.  Brailsford,  "A  White  Guard  in  Germany,"  in  New  Repub.,  Apr.  21, 
1920;  T.  Wolff,  "The  Victory  of  German  Democracy,"  in  N.  Y.  Nation,  May  1, 
1920. 


734  GOVERNMEN  P6  01    EUROPE 

ranks  were  depleted  by  the  secession  of  a  portion  of  its  Berlin 
contingent  to  the  more  conservative  People's  party. 

The  Social  Democrats  went  into  the  contesl  as  the  dominant 
party  both  in  the  government  coalition  and  in  the  Assembly. 
Yv  i  they,  too,  Buffered  heavy  secessions.  When  the  former 
trade-union  officials  and  labor  leaders  of  the  Ebert-Bauer  type 
found  themselves  in  power  they  drew  back  from  translating  their 
long  heralded  doctrines  and  policies  freely  into  action.  They 
had  stood  steadily  with  the  Junkers  and  militarists  during  tin- 
war;  they  continued  to  use  the  old  army  to  back  up  their 
authority;  they  did  not  replace  the  officials  of  the  old  regime 
generally  with  new  ones  of  their  own  way  of  thinking ;  they  kept 
up  the  old  methods  of  martial  law  and  force  ;  fearing  revolution, 
they  steadily  played  into  the  hands  of  the  reactionaries.  Pos- 
sibly they  moved  as  rapidly  as  was  practicable  or  wise.  But 
as  a  socialist  regime,  their  government  was  more  or  less  of  a 
sham.  The  more  radical-minded  of  their  followers  naturally 
grew  dissatisfied,  and  the  result  was  a  steady  migration  from  the 
Majority  ranks  into  the  ranks  of  the  two  radical  parties,  the  In- 
dependent Socialists  and  the  Spartacists  or  Communists.  This 
movement  was  powerfully  accelerated  by  the  unpopularity  of 
Noske,  a  Majority  Socialist,  as  minister  of  defense,  and  after  the 
von  Kapp  episode,  which  led  to  Noske's  retirement,  the  policies 
of  the  government  showed  a  certain  leftward  swing.  There  was 
no  assurance,  however,  that  the  Majority  party  would  regain  its 
lost  adherents,  for  both  the  Independents  and  the  Communists 
went  into  the  electoral  campaign  with  programs  that  could  be 
expected  to  draw  the  support  of  all  elements  that  were  clearly 
dissatisfied  with  the  pace  at  which  social  and  economic  change 
was  proceeding.  The  Independent  electoral  manifesto  was 
deliberately  given  a  certain  tone  of  moderation,  indeed,  with  a 
view  to  drawing  off  adherents  of  the  Socialist  Right.  The 
Communists,  it  will  be  remembered,  took  no  part  in  the  elections 
of  January,  1919;  and  a  neo-syndicalist,  anti-parliamentary 
•dement  seceded  under  the  name  of  the  Communist  Labor  party 
in  1920  and  refused  to  have  anything  to  do  with  political  methods 
of  action.  The  majority  element,  however,  went  before  the 
people  with  a  program  whose  central  feature  was  the  immediate 
n^titution  of  the  soviet  system  on  the  Russian  model.1 

The  results  of  the  election  only  added  to  the  confusion  and 
uncertainty  which  already  characterized  the  political  situation. 

1  M.  Uirschhtr^.  "German  Political  Tendencies  before  the  Coup,"  in  N.  Y. 
Nation,  Apr.  3,  1920;   Anon.,  "The  German  Elections,"  ibid.,  June  12,  1920. 


THE  REPUBLICAN   CONSTITUTION 


735 


As  was  anticipated,  the  coalition  groups  —  Majority  Socialists, 
Christian  People's  party,  and  Democrats  —  lost  heavily,  and  the 
extremist  parties,  revolutionary  on  one  side  and  reactionary  on  the 
other,  made  decided  gains.  The.  popular  vote  for  Majority 
Socialist  candidates  was  cut  almost  in  half,  and  the  quota  of 
seats  fell  from  165  at  the  elections  of  1919  to  112.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Independent  Socialists  more  than  doubled  their  popu- 
lar vote  and  raised  their  quota  of  seats  from  22  to  81.  The 
Christian  People's  party  fell  from  90  seats  to  68,  and  the  Demo- 
crats from  75  to  45.  Both  parties  obviously  suffered  heavy 
defections  to  the  more  conservative  and  reactionary  groups,  which 
were  thus  enabled  to  realize  large  gains.  The  National  People's 
(former  Conservative)  party  increased  its  popular  vote  by  almost 
one  million,  and  obtained  66  seats  as  compared  with  42  in  191 9. 
The  success  of  the  German  People's  party  (the  old  National 
Liberals)  was  even  more  notable  —  a  tripling  of  the  popular  vote 
and  an  increase  of  seats  from  23  to  62.  Ten  parties,  in  all, 
elected  candidates  ;  in  addition,  some  votes  were  cast  for  candi- 
dates offered  by  ten  minor  groups  and  so-called  parties.  Thirty 
women  were  elected,  as  against  thirty-eight  in  19 19.1 

Legislative  elections  held  in  Bavaria,  Wurttemberg  and  other 
German  states  at  about  the  same  time  showed  similar  tendencies 
toward  political  extremes: 

Following  the  elections,  the  veteran  Centrist  president  of  the 
National  Assembly,  Konstantin  Fehrenbach,  assumed  ^  the 
chancellorship,  and  a  ministry  was  made  up  consisting  exclusively 

1  The  official  figures  are  as  follows  (though  it  must  be  observed  that  they  include 
40  members  carried  over  from  the  plebiscite  districts  where  there  was  no  election) : 


Party 


Majority  Socialists 

Independent  Socialists  .  .  .  . 
Christian  People's  party  (Centrists) 
National  People's  party  .  .  .  . 
German  People's  party       .     .     .     . 

Democrats 

Bavarian  People's  party*  .  .  .  . 
Christian  People's  party*  .     .     .     . 

Communists 

Bavarian  Peasant's  party  .  .  .  . 
German-Hanoverians 


Popular  Vote 


5,614,456 
4,895,317 
3,540,830 
3,736,778 
3,606,316 
2,202,334 
1,171,722 
65,219 

441,995 
218,884 
319,100 


No.  or 
Depdties 


66 
62 
45 


*  These  two  groups  were  local  off-shoots  of  the  Centrist,  Christian  People's, 
party. 


<;n\  ERNMENTS  OF    EUROPE 

of  Centrists,  adherents  of  the  German  People's  party,  and 
Democrats.  The  Majority  Socialists  had  a  plurality  in  the  \ 
sembly,  and  they  still  held  the  presidency  of  the  republic.  But 
power  had  passed  from  their  hands;  the  government  was  once 
more  essentially  non-socialist  The  Fehrenbach  cabinet,  curi- 
ously, had  the  support,  on  party  lines,  of  only  175  of  the  466 
members  of  the  Assembly.  But  at  the  Chancellor's  solicitation 
the  Majority  Socialists  and  the  National  People's  party  agreed 
to  refrain  from  arts  that  would  embarrass  the  new  government  at 
the  start  ;  and  when,  shortly  after  the  new  Assembly  convened 
(June  24),  the  Independent  Socialists  presented  a  resolution  ex- 
pressing lack  of  confidence,  the  ministry  was  decisively  sustained. 
Only  the  divisions  among  the  non-coalition  parties,  however, 
could  be  expected  to  enable  a  government  so  precariously  situ- 
ated to  retain  power  for  any  considerable  period.  The  ultimate 
equilibrium  of  political  elements  and  forces  remained  to  be 
disclosed. 


5.  Russia 
CHAPTER  XL 

THE    SOVIET    REPUBLIC    AND    ITS    GOVERNMENT 

The  four  or  five  years  covered  by  the  Great  War  saw  a  polit- 
ical transformation  in  central  and  eastern  Europe  which  out- 
distanced anything  of  the  kind  experienced  in  western  countries 
since  the  French  Revolution.  Under  circumstances  that  have 
been  described,  Germany  cast  out  the  Hohenzollern  dynasty, 
besides  a  group  of  lesser  ruling  families,  and  set  up  a  semi-socialist 
republic.  Overwhelmed  in  defeat,  the  Habsburgs  lost  their  hold 
in  Austria-Hungary,  and  the  ramshackle  Dual  Monarchy  fell 
apart  into  a  republic  of  German  Austria,  a  republic  of  Hungary, 
a  republic  of  Czechoslovakia,  besides  important  southern  lands 
that  passed  in  part  to  Italy  and  in  part  to  the  new  kingdom  of 
Jugoslavia.  The  disintegration  of  Russia  in  191 7-18  gave  rise 
to  a  chain  of  new  states  stretching  from  the  Arctic  Ocean  to  the 
Black  Sea  —  Finland,  Esthonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland,  and 
Ukrainia  —  all  republics,  and  all  equipped  with,  or  bent  upon 
attaining,  written  constitutions.  The  South  Slav  monarchies 
were  merged  in  the  Jugoslav  kingdom,  which  is  practically 
a  greater  and  democratized  Serbia.  Rumania,  although  clinging 
to  monarchy,  substituted  universal  suffrage  for  the  three-class  elec- 
toral system  borrowed  at  an  earlier  time  from  Prussia.  Finally, 
Russia,  driven  by  desperation  born  of  defeat,  misrule,  and 
starvation,  turned  against  tsarism,  unseated  the  Romanovs, 
embraced  republicanism,  surrendered  to  a  Bolshevist  faction, 
and  ended  by  setting  up  a  political  and  social  order  which  was 
without  precedent  or  parallel  in  the  history  of  that  country  or  of 
the  world. 

Governmental  systems  are  still  inchoate  and  political  condi- 
tions extremely  unsettled  in  all  of  these  states  when  the  present 
pages  are  written  (1920).  It  would,  therefore,  be  useless  to  at- 
tempt a  description  of  the  various  governments  which  would  be 
true  to  fact  for  any  length  of  time,  even  if  space  permitted.     One 

3B  737 


GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

effort  only  will  therefore  be  made  in  this  direction,  namely,  a  brief 
account  of  the  political  transformation  in  Russia  and  of  the 
soviet  system  of  government  instituted  in  that  country  in  [917 

a  scheme  of  public  organization  and  control  which  will 
probably  break  down  or  pass  gradually  into  something  more  in 
accord  with  old  and  familiar  systems,  but  which  in  any  event  will 
have  added  a  remarkable  chapter  to  the  history  of  man's  polit- 
ical thought  and  endeavor. 

Russian  Political  Conditions  before  the  Great  War.  —  A  coun- 
try of  continental  proportions,  stretching  ever  monotonously  he- 
fore  the  eye.  with  the  widest  contrasts  of  luat  and  cold.  Hood 
and  drought,  opulence  and  misery;  a  chaos  of  races  and  creeds 
and  a  babel  of  tongues  ;  historically  in  the  main,  but  not  wholly, 
European;  geographic  ally  largely,  but  not  entirely,  Asiatic; 
a  world  within  itself  and  a  world  between  worlds  — ■  such  is  the 
land  which  we  have  heretofore  known  as  Russia.  The  political 
power  wiiich  brought  this  congeries  of  territories  and  peoples 
together  had  a  continuous  history  from  the  opening  of  the 
fourteenth  century,  when  the  newly  established  principality  of 
Moscow  began  to  extend  control  over  the  political  divisions 
around  its  borders,  and  likewise  to  push  back  beyond  the  Urals 
the  rule  of  the  Mongols  which  had  lain  heavy  upon  easternmost 
Europe  for  more  than  a  century.1  The  circumstances  of  the 
foundation  of  the  Muscovite  state  and  the  general  conditions  pre- 
vailing in  the  Muscovite  dominions  throughout  these  six  hundred 
years  were  altogether  favorable  for  strong  monarchy,  indeed 
lor  absolutism.  The  state  was  originally  built  up  by  the  subjuga- 
tion of  rival  principalities.  Every  step  in  the  later  expansion  of 
dominion  —  an  expansion  which  eventually  brought  under  the 
Russian  flag  one  sixth  of  the  land  surface  of  the  globe  —  was 
accomplished  by  conquest  or  aggressive  diplomacy.  The  Greek 
Church  habitually  looked  to  the  tsar 2  for  protection  and  in  return 
upheld  his  claims  to  power.  The  Byzantine  ideal  led  him  to 
adopt  the  pomp  and  exclusiveness  of  an  Oriental  potentate.  The 
country  was  remote,  and,  until  late,  the  people  were  not  touched 
by  western  influences. 

There  were  from  time  to  time,  it  is  true,  some  developments 
in  the  direction  of  representative  and  liberal  government.     The 

1  The  ascendency  of  Moscow  dates,  more  pre<  isely,  from  the  reign  of  the  grand 
duke  Ivan  I  (1330-30).  The  Russian  metropolitan  transferred  lii-  scat  at  this  time 
from  Vladimir  (whither  he  had  moved  from  Kiev  in  1229)  to  Moscow. 

2This  term  was  first  used  as  a  coronation  title  in  1547,  but  it  appeared  in  the 
Byzantine  correspondent  c  of  the  prime  of  Moscow  somewhat  earlier. 


THE   SOVIET  REPUBLIC  AND   ITS   GOVERNMENT     739 

same  tsar,  Ivan  IV  (1533-84),  who  became  the  greatest  of  Russian 
autocrats  up  to  his  time  was  the  first  to  convoke  a  Zemski  Sobor, 
or  national  assembly.  This  crude,  tumultuous  counterpart 
of  the  English  Parliament  and  of  the  French  Estates  General 
never,  however,  gained  the  right  to  be  regularly  or  frequently 
convened,  and  at  best  it  was  the  organ  of  the  boiars,  or  nobles, 
rather  than  of  the  nation  at  large.  Furthermore,  Peter  the 
Great  (1689-1725)  brushed  it  aside;  and,  although  not  formally 
abolished,  it  was  never  thereafter  called  together.  Catherine 
II  (1762-96)  set  up  a  Grand  Commission,  composed  of  564 
persons  chosen  throughout  the  Empire,  to  assist  in  a  recodifica- 
tion of  the  national  laws.  But  the  body  was  not  intended  to  be 
a  parliament,  and  its  deliberations  proved  so. profitless  that  it 
was  disbanded  with  its  main  task  still  unperformed.  Alexander  I 
came  to  the  throne  in  1801  with  liberal  ideas.  He  had  seri- 
ously considered  giving  the  country  a  written  constitution,  to 
be  prepared  by  an  elected  representative  assembly.  As  tsar,  he, 
however,  drew  back  from  the  plan.  Finally,  Alexander  II 
(1855-81)  came  to  a  decision  to  establish  a  partially  elective 
national  assembly  with  power  to  give  preliminary  consideration 
to  legislative  proposals ;  but  he  was  assassinated  twenty-four  hours 
before  the  decree  was  to  be  promulgated.  Only  in  the  domain 
of  local  government  was  any  real  and  lasting  advance  made 
toward  popular  control  of  affairs  up  to  the  close  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  Catherine  II  introduced  elective  municipal  dumas, 
or  councils,  which  represented  all  classes  of  the  population. 
Alexander  II,  in  addition  to  reconstructing  the  judicial  system 
and  further  reorganizing  municipal  government,1  instituted  two 
sets  of  elective  zemstvos,  or  assemblies  —  district  zemstvos, 
chosen  by  the  landholders  (including  the  newly  emancipated 
serfs),  and  provincial  zemstvos,  composed  of  representatives  of 
the  several  district  assemblies  within  the  province,  and  en- 
dowed with  substantial  legislative  and  fiscal  powers.2 

The  twentieth  century  found  autocracy  still  in  the  saddle. 
In  a  greater  degree  than  ever  before,  however,  it  was  on  the  de- 
fensive. The  landholding  classes  —  both  large  owners  and  peas- 
ants —  were  alienated  by  the  favors  shown  by  the  government  to 
the  newer  industrial  interests,  and  in  a  series  of  reports  in  1902-03 
the  zemstvos  called  loudly  for  a  national  parliament  and   for 

1  On  the  system  established  see  M.  Kovalevsky,  Russian  Political  Institutions 
(Chicago,  1902),  222-231. 

2  It  should  be  added  that  the  peasant  communes  (mirs)  were  practically  auton- 
omous until  Alexander  III  (1881-94)  placed  them  under  the  supervision  of  wealthy 
landed  proprietors. 


74°  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROP1 

many  other  innovations  and  reforms.    On  the  other  hand,  the 

fact.uy  workers  of  the  town-  and  cities  were  fast  going  over  to 
socialism,  and  in  [898  a  Workmen'-  Social  Democrat^  party  be- 
gan to  emulate  the  socialisl  parties  of  western  countries.  Im- 
portant middle,  lass  professional  and  industrial  element-  urged 
political  reorganization  on  western  lines,  and  in  1004  a  small  but 
active  group  of  intellectual  liberals  organized  a  Union  of  Libera 
tors  as  a  political  party.  Added  to  these  forces  of  opposition  were 
the  Pole-.  Finns,  and  other  subject  nationalities,  whose  lir-l  in- 
terest was  to  resist  "  Ru-siiication."  but  who  saw  in  the  political 
liberalization  of  the  Empire  the  surest  means  of  accomplishing 
their  emancipation. 

The  Russian  defeats  in  the  Far  East  in  1904-05  roused  strong 
public  feeling  and  gave  the  discontented  elements  an  unexpected 
opportunity.  An  informal  gathering  of  representatives  of  the 
zemstvos  and  dumas  petitioned  the  tsar  in  November,  [904,  to 
convoke  a  constituent  assembly  and  demanded  a  national  parlia- 
ment;  and  after  a  period  of  evasion  public  disorders  became 
such  that  the  government  was  compelled,  in  self-defense,  to  take 
the  desired  action.  In  August,  1905.  a  constitutional  decree 
called  into  existence  a  representative  body  known  as  the  Imperial 
Duma ;  a  manifesto  of  October  stipulated  that  no  law  should 
become  effective  without  this  body's  consent ;  a  rescript  of  De- 
cember practically  conceded  manhood  suffrage. 

The  political  transformation  thus  auspiciously  begun  did  not, 
however,  work  out  satisfactorily.  The  restoration  of  peace  in 
1905  largely  freed  the  government  from  the  embarrassments 
which  had  compelled  it  to  make  concessions.  The  reform  ele- 
ments fell  apart  into  parties  —  Liberals,  Constitutional 
Democrats,  "  Octobrists,"  Social  Democrats,  Socialist  Revolu- 
tionaries—  which  squandered  their  strength  in  conflicts  among 
themselves.  The  great  landlords  and  other  reactionaries  set 
on  foot  a  vigorous  campaign  for  a  restoration  of  the  old  regime. 
The  upshot  was  that  constitutional,  parliamentary  government 
was  practically  strangled  at  its  birth.  First,  a  decree  of  March, 
1906,  associated  with  the  Duma,  which  now  became  merely  the 
lower  house  of  a  bicameral  legislature,  an  upper  chamber  in  the 
form  of  the  old  Council  of  State,  renamed  the  Council  of  the 
Empire,  and  composed  of  equal  numbers  of  members  appointed 
by  the  tsar  and  elected  indirectly  by  certain  privileged  classes. 
The  same  decree  excluded  from  parliamentary  discussion  the 
fundamental  laws  of  the  Empire,  the  composition  of  the  legisla- 
tive bodies,  the  army  and  navy,  and  foreign  relations.     When  the 


THE  SOVIET  REPUBLIC   AND   ITS   GOVERNMENT     741 

first  Duma,  convoked  in  May,  1906,  took  up  the  preparation  of 
measures  looking  to  the  establishment  of  pure  parliamentary 
government,  the  body  was  dissolved  and  new  elections  were  or- 
dered ;  and  a  year  later  the  second  Duma  met  the  same  fate, 
under  similar  circumstances.  Before  further  elections  were 
held,  the  government  arbitrarily  reconstructed  the  electoral 
system,  withdrawing  representation  from  some  parts  of  the 
Empire,  shamelessly  "  gerrymandering  "  the  remaining  parts, 
and  introducing  complicated  machinery  to  insure  the  return  of 
majorities  favorable  to  the  government.1  The  third  Duma, 
chosen  in  1907,  was  duly  deferential  and  lasted  until  191 2.  The 
fourth  was  in  existence  when  the  Great  War  began. 

The  revolution  of  1905  yielded  some  lasting  political  gains. 
Although  far  from  being  the  independent  parliament  that  many 
of  the  reformers  had  desired,  the  Duma  reflected  public  feeling 
to  some  extent  and  frequently  exerted  some  influence  on  the 
government's  policies.  It  familiarized  the  people  with  represent- 
ative institutions  on  a  national  scale,  and  it  furnished  a  possible 
basis  for  the  development  of  a  true  parliamentary  system.  In 
the  final  analysis,  the  Empire's  government  was  still  in  19 14, 
however,  a  thinly  veiled  bureaucratic  autocracy.2 

The  Bourgeois  Revolution  of  March,  1917.  —  Nothing  less, 
perhaps,  than  superhuman  wisdom  on  the  part  of  the  ruler  and 
his  ministers  could  have  carried  the  Russian  system  of  govern- 
ment through  the  Great  War  intact.     But  Nicholas  II  was  far 

1  S.  N.  Harper,  The  New  Electoral  Law  for  the  Russian  Duma  (Chicago,  1908). 
The  electoral  system  is  fully  described  in  Seymour  and  Frary,  How  the  World 
Votes,  II,  Chaps,  xxvi-xxvii. 

2  The  political  history  of  Russia  since  the  opening  of  the  nineteenth  century  is 
briefly  narrated  in  C.  J.  H.  Hayes,  Political  and  Social  History  of  Modern  Europe, 
I,  Chap,  xii,  II,  Chap,  xxv ;  Cambridge  Modern  History,  X,  Chap,  xiii,  XI,  Chaps, 
ix  and  xxii,  XII,  Chaps,  xii-xiii ;  Hazen,  Europe  Since  1815,  Chaps,  xxix,  xxxi ; 
and  Schapiro,  Modern  and  Contemporary  European  History,  Chaps,  xxi-xxiii.  A 
standard  history  is  A.  Rambaud,  Histoire  dc  la  Russie  de'puis  les  origines  jusqu'd 
nos  jours,  6th  ed.  rev.  to  1913  by  E.  Haumant  (Paris,  1914),  trans,  by  L.  B.  Lang 
and  with  chapters  covering  the  period  1877-1904  by  G.  M.  Adam,  under  the  title 
History  of  Russia  (London,  1904).  Excellent  general  descriptions  are  D.  M.  Wal- 
lace, Russia  (new  ed.,  New  York,  1908);  M.  Baring,  The  Russian  People  (2d  ed., 
New  York,  191 1) ;  and  L.  Wiener,  An  Interpretation  of  the  Russian  People  (New 
York,  1915).  Institutional  history  is  covered  in  a  scholarly  manner  in  M.  Kovalev- 
sky,  Russian  Political  Institutions  (Chicago,  1902),  and  the  revolutionary  movement 
is  treated,  from  various  points  of  view,  in  J.  Mavor,  Economic  History  of  Russia 
(New  York,  19 14),  II,  Bks.  iv-vii;  P.  Milyoukov,  Russia  and  its  Crisis  (Chicago, 
1905) ;  B.  Pares,  Russia  and  Reform  (London,  1907) ;  W.  E.  Walling,  Russia's 
Message  (New  York,  1908);  M.  Kovalevsky,  La  arise  russe:  notes  et  impressions 
d'un  temoin  (Paris,  1906);  M.  J.  Olgin,  The  Soul  of  the  Russian  Revolution  (New 
York,  1917) ;  P.  Vinogradoff,  The  Russian  Problem  (London,  1914).  E.  A.  Golden- 
weiser,  "The  Russian  Duma,"  in  Polit.  Sci.  Quar.,  Sept.,  1914,  is  a  useful  article. 


74i  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

from  being  svjperhumanly  wise,  and.  with  few  exceptions,  the 
people  who  surrounded  and  influenced  him  whether  the  minis- 
ters who  passed  in  dreary  succession  across  the  political  Bl 
the  members  of  his  immediate  household,  or  the  hangers  on  at 
the  court  were  stupid,  reactionary,  and  corrupt.  The  resull 
was  that  under  the  impact  of  the  war  the  government  tottered 
and  collapsed.  Forces  of  revolution  burst  all  restraints,  the  tsar 
and  his  family  were  brutally  murdered,  the  Red  Terror  swept 
the  land  as  fire  driven  by  the  wind,  society  was  turned  upside 
down,  and  the  once  mighty  Empire  became  only  a  name.  The 
outbreak  of  the  war  was  the  signal  f<>r  a  demonstration  of  patriotic 
feeling  almost  as  unanimous  and  impressive  as  the  show  of  public 
sentiment  in  France  and  other  belligerent  countries.  All  parties 
except  an  extreme  group  of  Social  Democrats  pledged  the  govern- 
ment unreserved  support.1  However,  the  stupendous  !• 
of  men,  the  German  conquest  of  Poland,  and  the  sufferings  of 
the  masses,  produced,  within  the  first  year,  grave  discontent; 
and  in  August,  191 5,  all  of  the  groups  in  the  Duma  except  the 
Reactionaries  and  the  Social  Democrats  drew  together  in  a  "pro- 
gressive bloc  "  whose  purpose  was  to  urge  upon  the  government 
immediate  and  drastic  reforms.  Strong  demand  was  forthwith 
made  for  the  extension  of  the  suffrage  and  for  a  full  parliamentary 
scheme  of  government.2  But,  far  from  heeding  it,  the  tsar 
allowed  himself  to  be  swayed  in  the  direction  of  extreme  reaction, 
and  a  breach  arose  between  the  government  and  the  reformers 
which  steadily  widened  as  the  second  year  of  the  war  advanced. 
The  winter  of  1916-17  brought  matters  to  a  crisis.  The  tsar  was 
completely  dominated  by  his  wife,  who,  in  turn,  was  ruled  by  the 
fanatic  Rasputin ;  ministers  and  bureaucrats  brazenly  bartend 
with  the  enemy  and  lined  their  pockets  with  the  proceeds  of 
their  treachery ;  gross  and  willful  mismanagement  in  govern- 
ment circles  cost  the  lives  of  countless  thousands  of  soldiers  and 
brought  untold  suffering  to  other  thousands  and  to  the  civilian 
population  in  all  parts  of  the  country ;  when,  after  a  protracted 
interval,  the  Duma  was  reassembled  in  February,  1917,  the  gov- 
ernment met  its  protests  with  obvious  determination  to  make 
no  concessions  and  to  stamp  out  the  entire  liberal  movement. 
Manifestly,  the  preservation  of  the  autocracy  and  of  the  privileges 
of  the  bureaucracy  had  displaced  the  winning  of  the  war  as  the 
chief  concern  at  court. 

•The  attitude  of  the  parties,  and  of  the  people  generally,  toward  the  war  is 
described  in  (i.  Alexinsky,  Rut  >ia  and  the  Great  11'.;/-,  trans,  by  B.  Miall  (New  York, 
1915).     Sec  also  R.  W.  ChUd,  Potential  Russia  (New  York,  1916). 

2  See  H.  N.  Bradford,  "  Russia  in  Transition,"  in  New  Rcpub.,  Oct.  9,  1915. 


THE   SOVIET  REPUBLIC  AND   ITS   GOVERNMENT     743 

The  upshot  was  revolution.  When,  after  two  weeks,  the  Duma 
was  prorogued,  it  refused  to  disband  and,  instead,  declared  itself 
the  sole  constitutional  authority  in  the  country.  The  spirit  of 
mutiny  spread  to  the  troops  in  the  capital,  and  a  self-constituted 
Committee  of  Workmen  set  about  rousing  the  industrial  laborers 
to  revolt.  The  leaders  of  the  Duma,  representing  chiefly  the  busi- 
ness and  professional  classes,  did  not  relish  a  proletarian  revolu- 
tion, and  they  urged  the  government  to  the  utmost  of  their 
ability  to  forestall  the  impending  uprising  by  adopting  a  liberal 
and  conciliatory  policy.  But  the  court  reactionaries  would  not  be 
convinced ;  besides,  the  movement  had  probably  gone  too  far  to 
be  stopped.  The  soldiery  at  the  capital  went  over  almost  solidly 
to  the  side  of  the  revolutionaries ;  the  great  prison  fortress  of 
Saint  Peter  and  Saint  Paul  was  besieged  and  captured ;  bureau- 
crats were  arrested  and  slain  or  imprisoned ;  the  great  armies  in 
the  field  declared  for  an  end  of  the  old  regime  ;  the  tsarist  govern- 
ment collapsed  with  almost  incredible  suddenness  and  complete- 
ness. On  March  15,  Nicholas  II  yielded  to  advice  and  abdicated. 
Hoping  .to  save  the  dynasty,  he  designated  his  brother,  the 
Grand  Duke  Michael,  as  his  successor.  But  the  latter  an- 
nounced that  he  would  not  seek  to  mount  the  throne  unless  the 
Russian  people  should  express  their  desire  by  a  plebiscite  that  he 
do  so,  and  meanwhile  he  counseled  all  elements  to  submit  to  the 
provisional  government  which  had  assumed  control  of  affairs. 
This  government  was  a  ministry  chosen  from  and  responsible 
to  the  Duma,  and  presided  over  by  Prince  Lvov,  a  Constitu- 
tional Democrat.  It  promptly  won  the  recognition  of  the 
United  States  and  the  powers  of  the  Entente,  and  it  commended 
itself  to  liberals  throughout  the  world  by  the  manifest  sincerity 
with  which  it  proclaimed  and  protected  the  rights  of  the  people 
and  especially  of  the  subject  nationalities. 

The  political  regeneration  of  Russia  was,  however,  too  vast 
an  undertaking  to  be  carried  out  so  quickly  and  so  easily.  The 
relaxing  of  the  authority  of  the  old  order  inevitably  became  the 
signal  for  particularistic  manifestations,  long  repressed,  against 
the  unity  of  the  state ;  inexperienced  in  self-government  on  a  large 
sc.ale,  the  people  were  sure  to  stagger  under  the  suddenly  imposed 
responsibilities  of  the  new  regime  ;  the  habit  of  hating  the  tsarist 
government  had  bred  a  distrust  of,  and  impatience  with,  govern- 
ment in  general.  The  result  was  that  the  provisional  government 
of  Lvov  ran  at  once  into  insurmountable  difficulties.  These  can- 
not be  described  here ;  but  the  fundamental  trouble  arose  from 
the  fact  that  while  the  new  government  was  a  bourgeois  govern- 


744  GOVERNMEN  rS  01     El  ROPE 

imnt  which  proposed  to  reorganize  Russia  on  a  constitutional 
basis  afu-r  the  fashion  of  western  states,  the  people  at  large  — 
at  all  events  those  elements  that  had  the  disposition  and  the 
means  to  make  themselves  heard  cared  little  about  that  sort 
of  thing,  and  looked  rather  to  some  form  of  loose  economic 
political  organization  which  would  bring  power  mainly  or  entirely 
into  the  hands  of  the  working  classes.  From  the  outsel  the  pro 
visional  government  was  meagerly  supported  outside  of  the  capi- 
tal, while  extra-legal  Soviets,  i.e..  "  councils,"  of  workmen's, 
soldiers',  and  peasants'  deputies  organized  on  the  model  of  the 
Petrograd  Committee  of  Workers  drew  the  interest  and 
support  of  the  masses.  These  Soviets  were  dominated  by  Socialist 
Revolutionaries  and  Social  Democrats;  they  fully  understood 
that  the  Lvov  government  aimed  at  middle-class  rule  ;  they  would 
be  satisfied  with  nothing  less  than  the  complete  economic  and  so- 
cial transformation  which  would  flow  from  unrestricted  control 
by  the  workers. 

As  weeks  passed,  the  breach  between  the  provisional  govern- 
ment and  the  elements  represented  in  the  Soviets  steadily  widened, 
and  in  early  summer  it  became  necessary,  in  order  to  hold  things 
together  at  all,  to  open  the  ministry  to  persons  who  represented, 
or  at  all  events  were  in  sympathy  with,  the  soviet  cause.1  This 
intensified  the  internal  differences  from  which  the  government 
already  suffered  and  left  it  more  irresolute  than  before.  The 
Soviets  steadily  grew  more  outspoken  in  their  opposition  to  the 
prolongation  of  the  war;2  propaganda  of  a  do/en  sorts  —  paci- 
fist, pro-German,  nationalist  —  produced  appalling  discord  and 
unrest ;  the  country  fast  slipped  into  anarchy.  The  situation  was 
altogether  favorable  for  the  rise  to  power  of  any  party  or  group 
of  men  which  could  put  itself  unreservedly  behind  a  definite 
program  and  organize  popular  feeling  in  its  own  behalf.  Such  a 
party  promptly  appeared  in  the  Bolsheviki.3 

1  Kerensky,  however,  although  supporting  the  soviet  aims,  was  a  member  of 
the  provisional  govemmenl  from  the  beginning. 

-  They  demanded  peace  on  the  basis  of  no  annexations,  no  indemnities,  and  the 
self-determination  of  peoples. 

3  The  revolution  of  March,  1017.  and  the  failure  of  the  provisional  government 
arc  described  in  Olgin,  The  Soul  of  the  Russian  Revolution;  E.  P.  Stebbing,  From 
Czar  to  Bolshevik  (New  York,  1918);  I-'..  A.  Ross,  Russia  in  Upheaval  (New  York, 
1918);  A.  S.  Rappoport,  Pioneers  of  the  Russian  Revolution  (New  York,  1918); 
mrko.  War  and  Revolution  in  Russia  I  New  York,  iqtq)  ;  A.  J.  Sack,  The  Birth 
of  Russian  Democracy  (New  York,  1919) :  E.  Vandervelde,  Three  Aspects  of  the  Rus- 
sian Revolution  (New  York,  1919);  I.  !>•  Levine,  The  Russian  Revolution  1  Xew 
York.  1917);  and  E.  [.  Dillon,  The  Eclipse  of  Russia  (London,  1918).  A  valuable 
lir-t-hand  account  is  A.  F.  Kerensky,  The  Prelude  to  Bolshevism  (New  York,  1919), 
and   an  excellent  analysis  of  the  party  alignments  is  G.    Demorgny  Lcs  partis 


THE   SOVIET  REPUBLIC  AND   ITS   GOVERNMENT     745 

The  Bolshevist  Revolution  of  November,  1917.  —  Russian 
socialism  in  the  earlier  twentieth  century  was  organized  in  two 
great  parties,  the  Socialist  Revolutionaries  and  the  Social  Demo- 
crats. The  one  had  as  its  main  objective  the  transfer  of  the  land 
from  the  landlords  to  peasant  proprietors,  under  a  scheme  of 
private  ownership  with  certain  cooperative  features.  It  was, 
therefore,  largely  a  rural  party,  and  not  only  was  indigenous  but 
had  practically  no  counterpart  in  any  other  country.  The  Social 
Democratic  party,  on  the  other  hand,  embraced  chiefly  the  urban 
workers,  and,  adhering  to  the  Marxist  ideas  of  a  class  struggle  and 
the  ultimate  supremacy  of  the  proletariat,  was  broadly  similar  to 
the  socialist  parties  of  western  Europe.  Both  parties  were  split 
up  into  moderate  and  radical  factions,  each  tending  to  coalesce 
with  the  corresponding  faction  of  the  other  party.  The  moderate 
and  radical  wings  of  the  Socialist  Revolutionaries  were  designated 
as  the  Right  and  the  Left.  In  the  Social  Democratic  ranks  the 
moderates  were  known  as  "  Mensheviki,"  i.e.,  "  the  minority," 
and  the  extremists  as  "  Bolsheviki,"  i.e.,  "  the  majority."  The 
differences  between  these  two  factions  of  Social  Democrats  were 
substantially  those  which  separated  the  "  reformist  "  and  ortho- 
dox wings  of  socialism  in  Germany,  France,  and  Italy.  That  is, 
the  Mensheviki  believed  that  the  socialistic  state  could  be  at- 
tained only  by  gradual  steps  and  favored  cooperation  with  other 
progressive  and  radical  elements ;  while  the  Bolsheviki  would  be 
satisfied  with  nothing  short  of  a  sudden,  cataclysmic,  violent, 
and  international  transition  to  the  new  order. 

Although  termed  the  "  majority,"  the  Bolsheviki  originally 
were  only  a  small  minority  of  the  whole  body  of  Russian  social- 
ists, and  they  formed  no  very  important  element  in  the  Soviets 
as  first  organized.  The  Mensheviki  heavily  preponderated.  The 
Bolsheviki,  however,  were  unencumbered  by  any  relations  with 
or  responsibility  for  the  provisional  government ;  in  Lenin  and 
Trotzky :  they  had  two  demagogic  and  unscrupulous  but  remark- 
ably adroit  and  successful  leaders  and  agitators ;  and  they  had 
a  program  which  could  be  counted  on  to  prove  attractive  to  an 

poliiiques  el  la  revolution  russe  (Paris,  1919).  Among  useful  magazine  articles  may 
be  mentioned  P.  Vinogradoff,  "Some  Impressions  of  the  Russian  Revolution,"  in 
Content  p.  Rev.,  May,  1917;  E.  J.  Dillon,  "The  Russian  Upheaval,"  in  Fort.  Rev., 
May,  1917;  S.  N.  Harper,  "The  Rise  of  Russian  Democracy,"  in  World's  Work, 
May,  1917 ;  A.  Petrunkevitch,  "The  Russian  Revolution,"  in  Yale  Rev.,  July,  1917 ; 
E.  A.  Ross,  "The  Roots  of  the  Russian  Revolution,"  in  Cent.  Mag.,  Dec,  1917; 
and  S.  Litman,  "Revolutionary  Russia,"  in  Amer.  Polit.  Sci.  Rev.,  May,  1918. 

1  Lenin,  whose  real  name  was  Vladimir  Ulyanov,  belonged  by  birth  and  training 
to  the  nobility,  but  had  been  a  lifelong  socialist.  Trotzky,  whose  true  name  was 
^ronstein,  was  a  middle-class  Moscow  Jew. 


746  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

uneducated,  impractical  people  whom  war-weariness  bad  made 
unusually  susceptible  to  emotional  appeal.  The  main  points 
in  this  program  were:  an  immediate  armistice,  to  be  followed 
by  peace  made  by  representatives  of  the  proletariat  ;  repudiation 
of  the  national  debt ;  immediate  <  onfiscal  ion  of  the  landed  estates 
in  the  interest  of  the  peasants,  who  were  to  be  organized  in 
Soviets  ;  full  and  immediate  control  of  factories  and  mine-  by  the 
workers;  nationalization  of  monopolies;  government  control  of 
all  production  and  distribution;  and  the  erection  of  the  Soviets 
into  a  government  based  on  the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat. 
Clever  propaganda  on  these  lines  brought  the  Bolshevists,  by  the 
dose  of  the  summer  of  1917,  into  control  of  most  of  the  Soviets; 
and  the  futile  efforts  of  the  provisional  government,  rendered  the 
hopeless  by  recurring  military  reverses,  foreshadowed  both 
the  collapse  of  Russia  in  arms  and  the  complete  transfer  of  power 
to  the  Bolshevist-controlled  councils.  An  attempt  to  seize  the 
rein  1  '   failed,   and  the  provisional  government,   hence- 

forl  's  leadership,  did  what  it  could  to  keep  the 

mi  i  in  hand.     But  every  plan  of  re- 

h;  '  *he  state  were  fast  dis- 

integ  '  ";ets,  to  be  con- 

vened at  Jre^  .  heviki  a  heavy- 

majority  of  the  seven  neeting  of  this 

body  was  made  the  occasion  oi  the 

night  of  November  6  the  Red  Guaiu^  <  pal 

government  buildings;    the  local  garrison  remai  or 

went  over  to  the  revolution  ;  on  the  morning  of  th  tl- 

bcrs  of  the  provisional  government  —  Kercnsky  alo' 
were  placed  under  arrest ;    and  on  the  next  day  t  1- 

Russian  Congress  of  Soviets  "  regularized  "  what  h  e 

by  formally  proclaiming  the  Russian  Socialist  Feder 
public  and  handing  over  the  conduct  of  affairs  to  . 
People's  Commissioners,  with  Lenin  as  premier  and 
"  people's  commissioner  for  foreign  affairs." 

The  new  order  was  clearly  a  product  of  force  anc 
was  estabh'shed  by  no  mandate  of  the  Russian  peopl 
election  of  a  National  Constituent  Assembly,  which  was 
carried  out  on  a  basis  of  direct,  universal,  and  secret 
showed  that  it  commanded  only  minority  support.1     La 
of  the  former  empire  utterly  refused  to  accept  it,  and  ev< 
its  hold  was  strongest,  i.e.,  in  the  portions  of  Europeai 
centering    around    Moscow,    its    tenure    was    precariou 

1  Anon.,  "Electing  the  Constituent  Assembly,"  in  New  Statesman,  Jan. 


THE  SOVIET  REPUBLIC  AND   ITS   GOVERNMENT     747 

elements  of  opposition  were,  however,  discouraged,  mutually  sus- 
picious, and  hopelessly  disorganized  ;  and  by  the  free  use  of  arms 
and  of  terrorism  comparable  with  that  of  the  tsarist  regime  at  its 
worst,  the  new  government  steadily  maintained  its  position 
up  to  the  time  when  these  pages  were  written  (July,  1920). 

The  first  great  objects  of  the  new  rulers  were  three :  to  make 
peace  with  the  Teutonic  powers,  to  effect  an  immediate  social 
and  economic  revolution,  and  to  institute  a  permanent  scheme 
of  government  based  on  the  system  of  Soviets.  To  attain  the 
first  of  these  ends,  the  government  proposed  to  all  of  the  bellig- 
erents a  three-months  armistice,  published  the  secret  treaties 
found  in  the  Russian  archives,  signed  an  independent  truce  with 
the  Teutonic  powers,  and,  prostrating  itself  in  the  dust,  accepted 
the  treaty  of  Brest-Litovsk,  which  reduced  the  Russian  republic 
to  substantially  the  area  of  the  medieval  grand-duchy  of  Mus- 
covy. The  social  and  economic  revolution  was  ushered  in,  in  so 
far  as  decrees  backed  by  force  could  do  it,  by  orders  transferring 
the  control  of  all  industrial  establishments  to  the  workers,  na- 
tionalizing all  land  and  turning  it  over  to  the  people  who  tilled 
it,  appropriating  mines,  waterways,  and  forests,  disestablishing 
the  Russian  Church,  repudiating  most  of  the  national  debt, 
and  in  sundry  ways  withdrawing  rights  from  the  aristocracy  and 
bourgeoisie  and  setting  up  the  long-promised  dictatorship  of 
the  proletariat. 

The  third  policy  found  definitive  expression  in  a  written  con- 
stitution, adopted  by  the  Fifth  All-Russian  Congress  of  Soviets, 
in  session  at  Moscow,1  on  July  10,  1918.  This  congress  was  a 
purely  Bolshevist  gathering.  The  Constituent  Assembly  elected 
in  the  previous  November  had  been  suppressed  because  it  was 
dominated  by  Socialist  Revolutionaries ;  the  Soviets  in  all  parts 
of  the  country  had  been  purged  of  non-Bolshevist  members,  or 
broken  up ;  the  Fifth  Soviet  Congress  consisted  exclusively  of 
delegates  from  the  federated  and  bolshevized  Soviets.  The  new 
constitution  was,  therefore,  the  work  of  a  purely  revolutionary 
assemblage ;  and  it  was  put  into  effect  without  either  a  popular 
referendum  or  ratification  by  local  bodies  of  any  sort.2 

1  The  capital  was  moved  thither  from  Petrograd  in  February,  1918. 

2  The  literature  on  the  Bolshevist  revolution  and  the  state  of  affairs  in  Russia 
under  Bolshevist  rule  is  very  extensive.  Much  of  it  is  of  journalistic  origin  and 
based  on  hasty  and  partial  observation.  Most  of  it,  too,  is  frankly  pro-Bolshevist 
or  anti-Bolshevist.  Among  the  most  dispassionate  books  on  the  subject  are  J. 
Spargo,  Bolshevism  versus  Democracy  (New  York,  1919) ;  E.  Antonelli,  Bolshevik 
Russia  (New  York,  1919) ;  W.  T.  Goode,  Bolshevism  at  Work  (New  York,  1920) ; 
and  F.  Buisson,  Lcs  Bolchcviki,  igiy-igig;  fails,  documents,  commentaires  (Paris, 


74«  GOVERNMENTS   or    KUROPE 

The  Constitution  of  1018  and  the  Soviet  System  of  Govern- 
ment. The  constitution  was  based  on  an  extensive  series  of 
declarations,  rules,  and  decrees  promulgated  by  the  Bolshevist 
authorities  after  the  coup  of  November.  1017.1  The  most 
important  of  these  antecedent  documents  a  "  Declaration 
of  the  Rights  of  the  Toiling  and  Exploited  People,"  drawn  up 
by  Lenin  and  Trotzky,  and  unfavorably  considered  by  the  Con- 
stituent Assembly  in  the  >pring  of  1918  bei  aim-,  indeed,  Article 
I  of  the  definitive  instrument.  The  remaining  the  articles 
contain  more  that  was  new.  Yet,  they,  too.  represent  largely  an 
assembling  of  previous  measures  and  proposals;  Article  II 
consists  of  general  provisions  pertaining  to  property,  labor, 
education,  citizenship,  and  religion  ;  Article  III  provides  for  the 
structure  of  central  and  local  government ;  Article  IV  covers 
the  suffrage  and  the  electoral  system;  Article  V  is  devoted  to 
the  budget ;  and  Article  VI  contains  specifications  concerning  the 
republic's  coat  of  arms  and  flag.  The  six  articles  are  divided 
into  seventeen  chapters,  and  these,  in  turn,  into  ninety  sections. 
The  aggregate  length  somewhat  exceeds  that  of  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States. - 

Aside  from  the  novel  style  of  government  for  which  it  provides, 
the  constitution  presents  some  interesting  characteristics.  The 
first  is  its  curiously  devised  guarantees  of  individual  rights.  As  a 
constitution  sprung  from  revolution,  the  instrument  naturally 
abounds  in  provisions  upon  this  subject.  The  rights  which  are 
guaranteed  are,  however,  those  of  the  "  laboring  and  exploited 
people  "  only.  It  is  true  that  all  citizens  are  declared  to  have 
equal  rights.3  But  the  context  shows  that  this  is  meant  to 
prevent  discriminations  on  grounds  of  race  and  nationality, 
rather  than  other  sorts  of  discrimination ;   and  from  first  to  last 

1919).  First-hand  expositions  of  Bolshevist  principles  and  policies  are  contained 
in  L.  Trotzky,  Our  Revolution;  Essays  on  Working-class  and  International  Revolu- 
tion, 1Q14-1Q17  (New  York,  1918),  and  The  History  of  the  Russian  Revolution  to 
Brest-Litovsk  (London,  1919);  N.  Lenin,  The  Russian  Revolution  (New  York,  1917), 
and  The  Soviets  at  Work;  the  International  Position  of  the  Russian  Soviet  Republic 
and  the  Fundamental  Problems  of  the  Socialist  Revolution  (New  York,  1919).  Useful 
articles  include  A.  Shadwell,  "Bolshevism  according  to  Lenin  and  Trotzky,"  in 
Nineteenth  Cent.,  Feb.,  1919;  J.  Zeitlin,  "The  Conflict  of  Parties  in  the  Russian  Revo- 
lution," in  Univ.  of  III.  Bull.,  March  3,  1010:  and  S.  Perlman,  "Bolshevism  and  De- 
mocracy," in  Pub.  of  Amer.  Soeiolog.  Soc.,  XIV,  216-  225. 

1  Translations  of  most  of  these  documents  will  be  found  in  International  Concilia- 
tion, No.  136  (March,  1919),  5-71. 

'-'  An  English  version  of  the  constitution,  embodying  certain  revisions,  is  printed 
in  V.  V.  Nation,  Jan.  4,  1919,  pp.  8-12,  and  in  International  Conciliation,  March, 
1919,  pp.  72-90. 

3  Sec.  22. 


THE   SOVIET  REPUBLIC  AND   ITS   GOVERNMENT     749 

it  is  the  workers,  and  they  alone,  whose  rights  are  named  and 
guaranteed.  They  are  to  enjoy  freedom  of  expression,  religion, 
assembly,  organization  and  united  action,  and  education.  Other 
classes  of  people  are  not  recognized  as  having  any  rights  at  all ; 
although  it  must  be  added  that  there  is  a  certain  cheerless  logic 
in  this,  in  that  the  constitution  designates  "  the  complete  aboli- 
tion of  the  division  of  the  people  into  classes  "  as  one  of  the 
main  objects  of  the  new  order,  and  furthermore  undertakes  to 
make  workers  of  the  entire  able-bodied  population.  A  second 
outstanding  feature  of  the  constitution  is  the  emphasis  placed 
upon  matters  of  public  policy,  as  distinguished  from  the  structure 
and  powers  of  government.  The  constitution  is  intended,  in- 
deed, to  sum  up  and  give  unity  to  the  social  and  economic  revolu- 
tion, quite  as  much  as  to  provide  a  plan  of  political  organization. 
Hence  it  abolishes  private  ownership  of  land,  declares  forests  and 
mines  national  property,  decrees  ultimate  national  ownership 
of  all  other  means  of  production  and  transportation,  disestablishes 
the  Church,  secularizes  education,  proclaims  that  "  he  shall 
not  eat  who  does  not  work,"  enjoins  universal  military  training, 
and  vests  all  power  in  "  the  working  classes,  united  in  urban  and 
rural  Soviets."  Even  foreign  policy  is  included:  the  speedy 
establishment  of  "a  general  democratic  peace  without  annexa- 
tions or  indemnities  "  ;  full  publicity  of  international  agreements 
and  relationships  ;  recognition  of  Finnish  independence  ;  an  end 
of  European  exploitation  of  the  "  toiling  populations  "  of  Asia 
and  other  parts  of  the  outlying  world. 

The  system  of  government  for  which  the  constitution  provides 
likewise  presents  a  number  of  striking  features.  In  admitting 
to  political  power  only  a  portion  of  the  adult  population  it,  of 
course,  is  in  no  wise  unique.  But  the  basis  on  which  the  line  is 
drawn  between  the  enfranchised  and  the  unenfranchised  is  with- 
out precedent  or  parallel.  The  fundamental  principle  is  that 
only  people  who  can  be  reckoned  as  "  producers  "  shall  have  a 
share  in  the  control  of  public  affairs.  Accordingly,  the  right 
to  vote  and  to  hold  office  is  conferred  on  persons  of  both  sexes 
who  have  reached  the  age  of  eighteen  and  who  (a)  "  have  acquired 
the  means  of  living  through  labor  that  is  productive  and  useful 
to  society,"  or  (b)  are  "  engaged  in  housekeeping  which  enables 
the  former  to  do  productive  work,"  or  (c)  are  peasants  or  agricul- 
tural laborers  who  employ  no  help  for  the  purpose  of  making 
profits,  or  (d)  are  in  service  in  the  army  or  navy  of  the  Soviet 
Republic,  or  (e)  are  persons  of  any  of  these  categories  _  who 
"  have  to  any  degree  lost  their  capacity  to  work."     Resident 


750  GOVERNMENTS  01     El  ROPE 

aliens,  if  engaged  in  Labor,  enjoy  political  rights  equally  with 
citizens.  On  the  other  hand,  the  following  classes,  chiefly,  are 
excluded  from  the  suffrage:  ( i  I  persons  who  employ  hired  labor 
in  Order  to  obtain  from  it  an  Increase  of  profits,  (2)  persons  who 
live  from  income  without  working,  whether  interest  from  capital 
or  revenues  from  property,  I  j)  merchants,  tradesmen,  and  brok- 
ers. (4)  monks  and  clergy,  (5)  employees  and  agents  of  the  former 
police  and  members  of  the  old  gendarme  corps.  Xot  only  the 
former  aristocracy,  but  the  bourgeois  business  and  professional 
classes  are.  therefore,  practically  excluded  from  political  power. 
The  Soviets  rule  ;  and  the  Soviets  arc  composed  exclusively  of  the 
delegates  of  the  non-capitalistic  "  producers."  ' 

This  suggests  a  second  notable  feature  of  the  governmental 
system,  namely,  the  displacement  of  representation  on  a  geo- 
graphical basis  by  representation  on  an  occupational  basis.  The 
fact  has  been  noted  in  earlier  portions  of  this  book  that  in  various 
western  countries  there  is  a  growing  demand  that  political  or- 
ganization shall  be  made  to  correspond  more  closely  to  social 
grouping  and  occupational  interest.2  In  the  Russian  Soviet 
constitution  this  idea  finds  full  and  concrete  expression.  The 
urban  Soviets  are  composed,  not  of  councilors  elected  from  wards 
or  other  territorial  divisions,  but  of  delegates  chosen  by  the 
trade  unions  and  other  groups  of  workers  in  the  town.3  The  rural 
Soviets  are  similarly  constituted,  although  the  occupational 
homogeneity  of  the  country-dwelling  population  somewhat 
obscures  the  principle.  Even  the  provincial  Soviets,  in  which 
urban  and  rural  delegates  are  brought  together,  are  organized  by 
sections  —  peasants,  industrial  workers,  and  soldiers,  and  also 
Cossacks  in  regions  which  they  inhabit.  Only  in  the  All-Russian 
Congress  of  Soviets,  at  the  top  of  the  soviet  pyramid,  does  the 
geographical  basis  clearly  prevail. 

It  follows  from  what  has  been  said  that  the  soviet  system  of 
government  is  not,  and  makes  no  pretense  of  being,  democratic. 
There  was  a  time  when  the  ideal  of  Russian  liberalism  was  democ- 
racy on  the  lines  worked  out  in  England,  France,  and  other 
western  countries.     The  reformers  in  1904-05  gave  parliamentary 

1  J.  R.  MacDonald,  Parliament  and  Revolution  (London,  1920),  Chap.  v. 

2  This  is  a  main  proposal  of  the  syndicalists  in  France  and  of  the  gild  socialists 
in  England.  See  P>.  Russell,  Proposed  Roads  to  Freedom  (New  York,  iqiq),  56-85, 
and  (1.  I).  H.  Cole,  The  World  of  Labour  (London,  1013). 

3  The  soviet  in  this  form  must  not  be  understood  to  have  originated  in  1017. 
During  the  revolutionary  movement  of  1004-05  the  workingmen  of  Petrograd, 

■:,  and  other  cities  set  up  Soviets,  similarly  organized  on    the  basis  of  in- 
dustrial groups. 


THE   SOVIET  REPUBLIC  AND   ITS   GOVERNMENT     751 

government  first  place  in  their  demands.  Moderate  liberals, 
indeed,  still  looked,  in  191 7,  to  this  sort  of  readjustment,  and  the 
provisional  government  of  Lvov  expected  to  work  gradually  in 
this  direction.  However,  after  1906  the  radical-minded  elements 
grew  distrustful  of  the  conventional  democratic  program.  They 
deplored  the  constant  tendency  of  the  bourgeois  reformers  to 
compromise  with  autocracy;  they  noted  that  the  radicals  in 
western  lands  were  not  satisfied  with  the  fruits  of  democracy, 
but  instead  were  clamoring  for  a  different  type  of  political  or- 
ganization ;  they  became  obsessed  with  the  idea  that  the  only 
road  to  freedom  and  well-being  for  themselves  was  the  dictator- 
ship  of  the  proletariat.1  Accordingly  they  repudiated  the  ideal 
of  a  great  nation-wide  democracy  and  set  before  themselves  the 
image  of  a  state  composed  solely  of  workers  and  governed  exclu- 
sively in  the  workers'  interest;  and  when  a  singular  turn  of 
fortune  brought  them  into  power,  they  lost  no  time  in  turning 
this  image,  as  far  as  they  were  able,  into  reality. 

The  Structure  of  Government.  —  The  structure  of  the  new 
governmental  system  is  somewhat  complex  and  not  wholly 
symmetrical.  Its  dominating  feature  is  a  pyramidal  scheme  of 
soviet  congresses,  culminating  in  an  All-Russian  Congress,  and 
supplemented  with  commissars  and  other  executive  and  adminis- 
trative officers  and  committees.  The  primary  unit  is  the  village 
soviet  in  rural  portions  of  the  country,  the  city  soviet  in  urban 
centers.  The  members  of  the  village  soviet  are  chosen  by  the 
workers  of  the  village  commune.  All  village  Soviets  in  the  same 
volost,  or  township,  elect  a  volost  soviet,  in  the  proportion  of  one 
delegate  for  every  ten  members  of  the  inferior  body,  and  all 
volost  Soviets  in  the  same  uyezd,  or  county,  choose  a  county  soviet, 
at  the  rate  of  one  delegate  for  every  thousand  inhabitants.  The 
city  soviet  is,  of  course,  elected  by  the  primary  assembly  of  urban 
workers.  Representatives  of  the  rural  and  urban  Soviets  are 
first  brought  together  in  the  soviet  of  the  gubernia,  or  province, 
in  which  the  country  districts  are  represented  at  the  rate  of  one 
delegate  for  every  ten  thousand  inhabitants  and  the  urban  areas 
in  the  proportion  of  one  for  every  two  thousand  voters.2     Still 

1  The  fact  should  be  noted  that  many  serious-minded  students  of  government, 
in  Russia  and  elsewhere,  question,  as  a  recent  writer  puts  it,  "whether  in  our  dif- 
ferentiated modern  society  a  truly  representative  government  may  be  reared  on  a 
basis  of  an  economically  amorphous  mass  of  voters  who  are  united  by  no  other 
bond  than  residence  in  the  same  geographic  locality, but  are  separated  by  the  funda- 
mental differences  which  flow  from  difference  in  occupation."  E.  A.  Ross,  in  Amer. 
Polit.  Sci.  Rev.,  May,  1920,  p.  320. 

2  The  constitution  curiously  speaks  in  terms  of  inhabitants  when  dealing  with 
rural  populations  and  in  terms  of  voters  when  urban  populations  are  mentioned. 


75-1  GOVERNMENTS   01-    EUROPE 

above  the  provincial  soviet  stands  the  oblasl,  or  regional  soviet, 
composed  of  representatives  of  the  urban  and  provincial  (or 
county)  Soviets,  who  are  chosen  on  the  basis  of  one  for  every 
twenty-five  thousand  rural  inhabitants  and  one  for  every  five 
thousand  voters  in  cities.  Finally,  the  All-Russian  Congress  is 
composed  of  delegates  of  the  city  Soviets,  al  the  rate  of  one  for 
(.•wry  twenty-five  thousand  voters,  and  delegates  of  the  provin- 
cial Soviets  at  the  rate  of  one  for  every  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
five  thousand  inhabitants.  Urban  populations  are  given  the 
advantage  of  being  represented  in  the  supreme  body,  not  only 
indirectly  through  the  provincial  Soviets,  but  also  by  delegates 
specially  elected  for  the  purpose.  Members  of  Soviets  are  not 
chosen  for  a  term,  but  are  subject  to  recall  by  their  constituents 
at  any  time  ;  hence  there  are  no  fixed  dates  for  elections  through- 
out the  country,  or  even  in  a  given  subdivision.  Soviets  of  all 
grades  are  charged  with  carrying  out  "  all  orders  of  the  respective 
higher  organs  of  the  Soviet  power,"  taking  all  steps  towards 
"  raising  the  cultural  and  economic  standard  of  the  given  terri- 
tory," and  coordinating  all  soviet  activity  in  their  respective 
jurisdictions.  Village  Soviets  are  required  to  meet  at  least  once 
a  month,  county  and  pro\incial  Soviets  at  least  once  every  three 
months,  and  regional  Soviets  at  least  twice  a  year.  In  all  areas 
the  soviet  is  the  supreme  power ;  but  it  elects  an  executive  com- 
mittee which  carries  out  its  decisions  and,  in  intervals  between 
the  sessions  of  the  soviet  congress,  acts  as  the  highest  governing 
authority. 

In  the  All-Russian  Congress,  indirectly  representing  the  entire 
electorate,  are  gathered  all  ultimate  powers  of  sovereignty.  This 
body  has  full  authority  to  amend  the  constitution,  establish  and 
change  boundaries,  declare  and  carry  on  war,  make  treaties,  cede 
territory,  manage  foreign  relations,  levy  taxes,  make  loans,  main- 
tain armies  and  navies,  grant  and  revoke  citizenship,  fix  the  rights 
of  aliens,  and  regulate  weights  and  measures;  and  by  the  most 
extraordinary  "  sweeping  clause  "  to  be  found  in  any  written 
constitution  the  Congress  and  the  Central  Executive  Com- 
mittee which  it  elects  are  empowered  to  "  have  charge  of  all  other 
affairs  which,  according  to  their  decision,  require  their  atten- 
tion." '  By  the  terms  of  the  constitution  the  Congress  meets  at 
leasl  twice  a  year.  Between  sessions  supreme  power  rests  in 
the  All-Russian  Central  Executive  Committee,  which  is  a  body 
of  not  exceeding  two  hundred  members,  chosen  by  the  Congress. 
Indeed,    this   Executive   Committee   continuously   wields   legis- 

1  Art.  Ill,  Chap.  <>. 


THE  SOVIET  REPUBLIC  AND   ITS   GOVERNMENT     753 

lative  and  supervisory  powers  of  such  proportions  that  it  may 
properly  be  conceived  of  as  a  sort  of  subordinate  parliament, 
chosen  by  and  fully  responsible  to  the  Congress,  yet  enjoying 
substantial  autonomy.  Meetings  of  the  Congress  are  called  by 
the  Committee,  either  on  its  own  initiative  or  at  the  request  of 
local  Soviets  representing  not  less  than  one  third  of  the  popula- 
tion of  the  republic. 

Subject  to  ultimate  control  by  the  Congress,  the  Central 
Executive  Committee  has  full  charge  of  the  nation's  affairs. 
With  a  view  to  the  performance  of  necessary  executive  and  ad- 
ministrative tasks,  it  appoints  and  controls  a  Council  of  People's 
Commissars,  which  is,  in  effect,  a  ministry  composed  of  the  heads 
of  seventeen  executive  departments  named  in  the  constitution, 
e.g.,  foreign  affairs,  army,  navy,  finance,  justice,  labor,  social 
welfare,  public  health,  commerce  and  industry,  agriculture,  and 
transportation.  This  ministry  is  responsible,  singly  and  col- 
lectively, to  the  Executive  Committee,  and  it  must  refer  to  that 
body  all  orders  and  resolutions  "  of  great  political  significance." 
Every  commissar,  or  minister,  is  assisted  by  a  "  college,"  or 
committee,  whose  members  are  appointed  by  the  Council.1 

Two  or  three  major  facts  may  be  noted,  in  conclusion,  about 
this  scheme  of  government.  The  first  is  that  there  is  practically 
no  recognition  of  the  doctrine  of  separation  of  powers.  The 
All-Russian  Congress  is  the  repository  of  governmental  powers 
of  every  kind  and  in  unrestricted  measure  ;  the  Central  Executive 
Committee  is  at  the  same  time  an  executive  authority  and  a 
legislature ;  there  is  no  provision  whatsoever  in  the  constitution 
for  a  judiciary.  A  second  fact  is  that  representation,  and  hence 
popular  control,  is  far  less  direct  than  in  western  systems  of 
government.  Peasant  voters  select  a  village  soviet,  which 
selects  representatives  in  the  volost  soviet,  which  elects  delegates 
to  the  provincial  soviet,  which  sends  representatives  to  the  All- 
Russian  Congress  at  Moscow,  which,  finally,  elects  the  com- 
missars who  have  charge  of  the  country's  foreign  relations, 
finances,  and  other  great  interests.  The  commissar  is  far  re- 
moved from  the  peasant  elector ;  and  the  system  offers  repeated 
chances  for  the  commissars  and  other  government  leaders  to 
apply  influence  or  pressure  to  deflect  the  successive  Soviets 
farther  and  farther  from  the  people's  will.  Furthermore,  as  a 
recent  writer  has  pointed  out,  unless  the  principle  of  pro- 
portional representation  is  strictly  adhered  to  at  every  stage,  the 
minority  strains  must  disappear  from  the  skein  and  the  Central 

1  Art.  Ill,  Chap.  8. 
3C 


7;4  GOVERNMENTS  OF   EUROPE 

Executive  Committee  will  be  composed  entirely  of  the  majority 

party. 

This  leads  to  the  mention  oi  a  third  salient  fact,  namely,  that 
the  system  has  thus  far  been  operated  exclusively  in  the  interesl 
of  a  single  party  and  has  been  twisted  and  distorted  to  meel  the 
purposes  of  that  party.  Sovietism  and  bolshevigm  triumphed 
together,  and  the  Soviets  have  been  the  means  through  which  the 
party  of  Lenin  and  Trotsky  kept  itself  in  power-  Hut  the  form 
of  government  and  the  party  are  two  different  things.  The 
merits  of  sovietism  are  open  to  question;  probftply  the  world 
will  refuse  to  subscribe  to  the  principles  upon  which  the  scheme 
is  based.  Hut  it  should  be  recognized  that  the  plan  has  had  no 
fair  trial  in  Russia.  From  first  to  last  the  Bolshevists  syste- 
matically broke  up  Soviets  that  were  not  of  their  way  of  think- 
ing, manipulated  elections  so  as  to  assure  the  victory  of  govern- 
ment candidates,  completely  suppressed  freedom  of  speech  and 
of  the  press,  and  used  all  the  forces  and  arts  of  the  old  tsarist 
regime  to  perpetuate  their  own  absolutist  rule  —  the  rule,  it 
may  be  added,  of,  at  the  most,  some  six  hundred  thousand  people 
in  a  total  population  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  millions.  The 
chief  fault  of  sovietism  may  indeed  prove  to  be  that  it  lends  itself 
peculiarly  to  that  gravest  of  all  political  abuses,  the  tyranny  of 
minorities.1 

1  For  a  fair-minded  appraisal  of  the  new  regime  in  Russia  by  an  English  liberal, 
set  B.  Russell,  "  Soviel  Russja  — 1920,"  in  N.  V-  Nation,  July  31  and  Aug.  7, 
1920.     Further  discussion  will  be  found  in  books  mentioned  on  p.  747. 


INDEX 


Abgeordnclcnhaus.  See  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives (Prussia). 

Abthcilung,    in    Prussian  Landtag,  666. 

Acland  Committee,  report,  302. 

Action  Liberate,  origins  and  policies, 
487;   gains  in  191 2,  488. 

Act  of  Mediation,  558-559. 

Act  of  Security,  1 14. 

Act  of  Settlement,  39,  59. 

Adjoints,  become  elective,  469 ;  func- 
tions, 478. 

Administration.  See  Local  Govern- 
ment. 

Administrative  Law,  in  England,  211; 
in  France,  459-460. 

Admiralty  Board,  in  Great  Britain,  77. 

Alcohol,  monopoly  in  Switzerland,  569. 

Alexander  II,  liberal  ideas  and  policies, 

739- 

All-Russian  Congress  of  Soviets,  com- 
position, 752;  powers,  752-753. 

Alsace-Lorraine,  representation  in  Bun- 
desrath,  638;  representation  in 
Reichstag,  643. 

Amtsgericlit,  652. 

Apology  of  the  Commons,  25. 

Appeals,  in  English  courts,  213-219; 
in  French  courts,  456-458;  in 
German  courts,  652-653. 

Appellate  Jurisdiction  Act,  143. 

Army  administration,  Great  Britain, 
78-79;   in  German  Empire,  632-633. 

Arrondissement,  as  area  for  election  of 
deputies,  412,  418-421;  established, 
468;  organization,  474-475;  as  a 
judicial  area,  45  7. 

Asquith,  Llerbert,  on  woman  suffrage, 
103;  becomes  premier,  254;  proposes 
compromise  on  Irish  question,  294; 
arranges  party  truce,  314;  forms 
coalition  ministry,  315;  demands 
execution  of  Home  Rule  Act,  320; 
opposes  election  of  1918,  324;   rallies 


Independent  Liberals,  331 ;  reelected 
to  Parliament,  332. 

Astor,  Lady,  elected  to  Parliament, 
114. 

Astor,  Viscount,  compelled  to  accept 
seat  in  House  of  Lords,  142. 

Attorney-General,  in  Great  Britain,  83. 

Australia,  political  development,  343 ; 
governmental  system,  343-344. 

Austria,  influence  in  Italy,  504 ;  driven 
from  Italy  by  Napoleon,  505-506; 
recovers  power  in  Italy,  509;  loses 
Lombardy,  514;  loses  Venetia,  515; 
holds  presidency  of  German  Confed- 
eration, 610;  loses  leadership  of 
Germany  to  Prussia,  614-615;  ex- 
cluded from  German  confederation, 
616. 

Balfour,  premiership,  249;  resigns,  252. 

Ballot,  introduced  in  English  elections, 
136;  use  in  France,  415-417;  form 
in  France  under  the  law  of  19 19, 
425-42  7.^ 

Ballollagc,  in  France,  416. 

BaUoltaggio,  in  Italy,  529. 

Bavaria,  reserved  rights,  627. 

Bebel,  August,  opposes  socialist  op- 
portunism, 492. 

Benedict  XV,  reiterates  papal  claim  to 
temporal  power,  543 ;  sanctions 
formation  of  People's  party  in  Italy, 

55i- 

Bernstein,  Edward,  advocates  socialist 
revisionism,  700. 

Bethmann-Hollweg,  refuses  to  admit 
responsibility  to  Reichstag,  706-707; 
promises  electoral  reform,  707 ;  re- 
signs, 707. 

Bczirksamman,  in  Switzerland,  585. 

Bill-drafting,  in  Great  Britain,  183. 

Bill  of  Rights,  32-33. 

Birmingham  caucus,  269. 


755 


756 


INDEX 


Birrell,  Augustine,  introduces  education 

bill,  3". 
Bismarck,    Otto    von,    policies,    615; 

reconstructs     local     government     in 

Prussia,     668;      seeks     to     repress 

socialism,  687-688. 
Bloc  National  Republicain,  in   France, 

4QO-500. 
Hoard  of  Agriculture,  in  Great  Britain, 

85- 
Board  of  Education,  in  Great  Britain, 

84-85. 

Board  of  Trade,  in  Great  Britain,  83- 
84;   control  over  local  affairs,  228. 

Board  of  Works,  in  Great  Britain,  85. 

Bolsheviki,  principles  and  aims,  745 ; 
carry  out  revolution,  746 ;  policies  as 
rulers,  746-747 ;  frame  republican 
constitution,  747-748. 

Bordeaux,  seat  of  French  government 
removed  from,  376. 

Borough,  in  early  England,  4;  early 
suffrage  in,  22;  suffrage  at  opening 
of  nineteenth  century,  116;  redis- 
tribution of  parliamentary  represen- 
tation in  1832,  1 19-120;  suffrage 
changes  in  1867,  121;  redistribution 
of  seats  in  1885,  123;  government 
at  opening  of  nineteenth  century, 
222;  Municipal  Corporations  Act 
of  1835,  222-224;  the  council,  234- 
235;    the  mayor,  234;    powers,  235. 

Bossuet,  advocates  divine  right  of 
kings,  358. 

Brest-Litovsk,  treaty  of,  747. 

Briand,  premier  in  France,  497. 

Broglie,  Due  de,  submits  draft  of  con- 
stitution, 379. 

Bryce,  Lord,  presents  report  on  upper 
chamber  reform,  156-158. 

Ikidget  (U.  K.),  preparation  and  nature, 
190-191 ;  procedure  in  France,  440- 
441. 

Biilow,  circumstances  of  retirement  in 
1909,  637,  705. 

Bundesgericht,  in  Switzerland,  composi- 
tion, 599;  organization  and  juris- 
diction, 600-602. 

Bundeskanzler,  of  North  German  Con- 
federation, 617. 

Bundesprasident,  of  North  German 
Confederation,  617,  628. 


Bnndesrath,  of  North  German  Federa- 
tion, 617;  composition  after  1871, 
637-638;  organization,  639;  pro- 
cedure, 640;  functions  and  powers, 
641-642;  undemocratic  character, 
642-643;  special  position  of  Prussia 
in,  655. 

Bundestag,  of  German  Confederation, 
610;  of  North  German  Confedera- 
tion, 617. 

Bureaux,  in  French  Parliament,  432- 
436. 

Butt,  Isaac,  father  of  Home  Rule 
movement,  283. 

Cabinet  (Great  Britain),  origins,  37-38 ; 
need  of,  39;  development,  39-40; 
relation  to  Privy  Council,  93-94; 
composition,  94-95 ;  increasing  size, 
95-96 ;  appointment  of  premier, 
96-97 ;  selection  of  other  members, 
97-100 ;  secrecy  of  proceedings,  101- 
102;  leadership  of  premier,  102-104; 
central  position,  105-106 ;  reorgani- 
zation during  Great  War,  106-1 1 1 ; 
increased  power  in  legislation,  178- 
180;  measure  of  immunity  from 
parliamentary  control,  180-182. 

Cabinet  (France),  adopted  from  Eng- 
land in  1814,  369;  rehabilitation  in 
!87i-75,  376-378;  relation  to  presi- 
dent, 396;  meetings  and  functions, 
400-401. 

Cabinet  (Italy),  522-525. 

Campbell-Bannerman,  leader  of  Liberal 
party,  250;    premiership,  252-253. 

Canada,  acquires  self-government,  340 ; 
governmental  system,  340-342. 

Canton  (France),  created  in  1789-90, 
466 ;  becomes  judicial  area,  468 ; 
general  character,  475. 

Canton  (Switzerland),  beginnings,  556- 
557;  in  1798,  558;  rearranged  in 
I8i5,  559;  constitutions  democrat- 
ized, 560;  question  of  sovereignty, 
566-567 ;  relations  to  the  federal 
government,  567-571 ;  control  over 
citizenship,  571-572;  size  and  popu- 
lation, 574;  powers,  575;  the  Lands - 
gemeinde,  576-579;  legislative  bodies, 
579-580;  proportional  representation, 
580;   the  referendum,  581-583;    the 


INDEX 


757 


initiative,  583-584;  administrative 
machinery,  584-586;  judiciary,  586. 

Carson,  Edward,  leads  Ulsterite  opposi- 
tion to  Home  Rule,  292-293. 

Catholic  Conservative  party,  in  Switzer- 
land, 603-605. 

Cavour,  Count,  policies,  513-514; 
favors  elective  upper  chamber,  527. 

Center  party,  rise  in  Germany,  687 ; 
alliance  with  Conservatives,  689; 
status  in  1914,  694-695;  renamed 
Christian  people's  party,  713. 

Central  Executive  Committee,  in  Rus- 
sia, 752-753. _ 

Central  Office,  in  English  party  organi- 
zation, 267-268. 

Chamber  of  Deputies  (France),  or- 
dained in  constitution  of  1875,  408; 
statutory  basis,  411-412;  growth  of 
membership,  412-413;  suffrage,  413 ; 
term  of  members,  414;  qualifications, 
414-415;  electoral  procedure,  415- 
416;  electoral  reform  of  1913,  416- 
417;  question  of  scrulin  de  liste  and 
scrulin  d'arrondissement,  418-421; 
movement  for  proportional  represen- 
tation, 421-422 ;  electoral  reform  bill 
of  191 2,  422-423;  electoral  law  of 
1919,  424-427 ;  place  of  meeting,  428 ; 
sessions,  429-430 ;  status  of  members, 
430-432  ;  compensation,  432  ;  officers, 
432-433 ;  bureaus  and  committees, 
433-436 ;  procedure  on  non-financial 
bills,  436-439 ;  budgetary  procedure, 
440-441 ;  control  over  administration, 
442-444 ;  interpellation,  444-445  ;  dis- 
use of  power  of  dissolution,  445-446. 

Chamber  of  Deputies  (Italy),  election  of 
members,  529;  development  of  suf- 
frage to  191 2,  529-531 ;  electoral  law 
of  191 2,  531-532;  organization  and 
procedure,  533-534- 

Chamberlain,  Joseph,  breaks  with  Lib- 
eral party,  247;  advocates  tariff  re- 
form, 251,  298-299. 

Chancellor,  origins  of  office  in  Germany, 
01  7j  633)  functions,  634;  relation  to 
ministries,  634-635 ;  lack  of  re- 
sponsibility, 635-637,  704-706;  in 
German  republic,  729-730. 

Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  growth  of 
powers,  75  ;  presents  budget,  190-191. 


Chancery,  in  England,  209. 

Charles  Albert,  grants  constitution  in 
Piedmont,  512;   abdicates,  513. 

Charles  II,  accession,  28 ;  relation  to 
rise  of  cabinet,  37. 

Chartists,  1 20-121. 

Chief  Secretary  for  Ireland,  286. 

Chiltern  Hundreds,  115. 

Christian  People's  party,  in  Germany 
after  1918,  713,  733. 

Church,  established  in  Ireland,  45 ; 
position  in  England,  303-305;  ques- 
tion of  disestablishment,  305-306; 
disestablished  in  Wales,  306-308; 
relation  to  education  question,  308- 
312;  status  in  Italy,  540-543; 
relation  to  Italian  politics,  549-553. 

Circondaro,  in  Italy,  537. 

Cisalpine  republic,  established,  505. 

Cispadane  republic,  established,  505. 

Citizenship,  regulation  in  Switzerland, 
571-572;   rights  in  Switzerland,  572- 

573- 

Civil  Code,  in  Germany,  624. 

Civil  List,  in  England,  61-62 ;  in 
Prussia,  659. 

Civil  Service,  earlier  need  of  reform  in 
England,  89-90;  stages  of  reform, 
90;  present  system,  91-92;  condi- 
tions and  problems  in  France,  404- 
406. 

Clemenceau,  opposes  electoral  reform 
act  of  1919,  424;  premiership,  498. 

Clergy,  representation  in  British  House 
of  Lords,  143-144;    status  in  Italy, 

541. 

Closure,  in  British  House  of  Commons, 
197-198. 

Code  Civil,  in  France,  450. 

Code  Napoleon,  origins,  450;  influence 
outside  of  France,  450-451 ;  extended 
to  Italy,  508. 

Colonies  of  Great  Britain,  336-339; 
Canada,  339-342;  Australia,  343- 
344;  South  Africa,  345-346;  crown 
colonies  and  protectorates,  346-348 ; 
India,  349-352  ;  problems  of  imperial 
reorganization,  353~356- 

Commissaire  de  police,  in  France,  478. 

Committees,  in  British  House  of  Com- 
mons, 169-170;  altered  in  1919,  171- 
1 72 ;     consideration   of   public   non- 


758 


INDEX 


financial  hills,   1S4  [85;    considera 
tion  of   money  bills,   186-191 ;    in- 
1  reased    use,    103-194;    on   private 
bills,  195-  tg6;  in  French  Parliament, 

434 
Committee    of    Selection,    in     British 

House  of  Commons,  [69. 
Committee  of  Supply,  in  Great  Britain, 

189. 

Committee  on  Public  Accounts,  in 
Great  Britain, 

Common  Law,  growth  in  England,  207- 
208 ;  relation  to  statute  law,  208 ; 
written  sources,  209. 

Commonwealth,  in  England,  27-28. 

Commune,  in  France  before  1 789,  466 ; 
rearranged  in  1789-90,  466;  experi- 
ments with  decentralization,  467; 
centralized  control  restored,  468; 
central  control  relaxed,  469;  mu- 
nicipal code  of  1884,  470;  legal 
status,  475;  number  and  size,  476; 
the  council,  476-477;  the  mayor, 
477-478. 

Comptroller  and  Auditor-General,  in 
Great  Britain,  77,  186. 

Conservative  (Unionist)  party,  position 
in  House  of  Lords,  146-148;  urges 
use  of  referendum,  1 51-152;  ascend- 
ancy in  early  nineteenth  century, 
241-242;  early  characteristics,  245- 
246 ;  second  period  of  dominance, 
246-250;  takes  up  tariff  reform,  251- 
252,  255;  in  elections  of  1910,  257; 
gains  in  period  1910-14,  258-259; 
tenets  and  tendencies,  260-261 ;  com- 
position, 262 ;  geographical  distribu- 
tion, 263-265;  the  Central  Office, 
267;  local  organization,  270;  the 
National  Union,  271-272;  opposes 
Irish  Home  Rule,  284,  292-293; 
divided  on  tariff  question,  299; 
position  on  tariff  in  1914,  300;  views 
on  land  reform,  302 ;  opposes  dis- 
establishment 304-308;  carry  Edu- 
cation Act  of  1902,  309-310;  defeat 
education  bill  in  1906,  311-312; 
in  coalition  of  1915,  315-316;  suc- 
cesses in  elections  of  191 8,  329-330. 

Conservative  party,  in  France,  484-486 ; 
in  Prussia  before  1871,  685;  alliance 
with   Center,   689;    status  in    1914, 


693  694;  becomes  National  People's 
party,  71a. 

Consolidated  Fund,  established  in  Eng- 
land, 76. 

Constitution,  first  written  instruments 
in  England,  2;  28;  meaning  of  term, 
46-47;  component  elements,  47-50; 
continuity,  50;  power  of  Parliament 
to  alter,  51-52;  in  written  form  as 
influenced  by  France,  364-365;  of 
[791,  1792,  and  1793  in  France,  366- 
367;  of  1799,  368;  of  1814, 368-370; 
of  1848,  371 ;  of  Second  Empire, 
372-373;  adopted  by  National  As- 
sembly in  1S75,  379-380;  form  and 
character,  381-383;  mode  of  amend- 
ment, 383-386;  origin  of  Italian 
instrument,  516;  modes  of  develop- 
ment, 517-518;  contents,  518-519; 
of  1798  in  Switzerland.  557;  of  1802, 
558,  of  1 81 5,  559;  of  1848,  561; 
session  in  1874,  561-563;  modes  of 
amendment,  582;  grants  in  German 
states  after  1815,  611;  conceded  in 
Prussia,  614,  655-656;  of  North 
German  Confederation,  616-617;  re- 
vised for  purposes  of  the  Empire,  619  ; 
contents,  620;  mode  of  amendment, 
621;  illiberal  character  of  Prussian 
fundamental  law,  657;  mode  of 
amendment,  657-658;  republican  in- 
strument framed  in  Germany,  718- 
720;  contents  and  character,  720- 
722;  amendment,  722-723;  Bolshe- 
vist instrument  of    1918  in  Russia, 

748-753- 

Convocations,  304. 

Corn  Laws,  repealed,  243. 

Coronation  oath,  in  England,  60. 

Corrupt  and  Illegal  Practices  Act, 
137-138. 

Corruption,  in  English  politics  at  open- 
ing   of  nineteenth  century.   116-117. 

Council,  of  French  department,  473- 
474;  of  arrondissement,  474;  of 
commune,  476-478;  of  Paris,  480; 
of  Italian  province,  538;  of  Italian 
commune,  538. 

Council  of  State,  in  France,  460-462. 

Council  of  States  (Switzerland),  com- 
position, 589-590;  functions,  590; 
powers  and  procedure,  590-593. 


INDEX 


759 


Council  of  People's  Commissars,  in 
Russia,  753. 

Council  of  the  Empire,  established  in 
Russia,  740. 

County  (English),  early  suffrage  in, 
21 ;  suffrage  at  opening  of  nineteenth 
century,  116;  suffrage  changes  in 
1867,  121;  in  1884,  123;  redistribu- 
tion of  parliamentary  representa- 
tion in  1885,  123-124;  justices 
of  the  peace,  213-214;  historical 
development,  221;  government  re- 
constructed in  1888,  226;  two  forms 
to-day,  228-229;  the  council,  229- 
230. 

County  borough,  233. 

Court  of  Chancery,  origins,  82. 

Court  of  Conflicts,  in  France,  462. 

Court  of  Criminal  Appeal,  in  England, 

215. 

Court  of  High  Commission,  19. 

Court  of  Star  Chamber,  19. 

Courts  (Great  Britain),  origins,  15-16; 
of  equity  discontinued,  210;  made 
more  symmetrical,  212;  of  criminal 
jurisdiction,  213-215;  of  civil  juris- 
diction, 215-217;  judicial  procedure 
of  House  of  Lords,  217-218;  Judicial 
Committee  of  Privy  Council,  218- 
219. 

Courts  (France),  reorganized  during 
Revolution,  453;  collegial  character, 
454-455;  appointment  and  tenure 
of  judges,  455-456;  ordinary  tribu- 
nals, 456-458;  administrative  tribu- 
nals, 460-462  ;  Senate  as  a  high  court, 
463-464. 

Courts  (Italy),  ordinary  tribunals, 
534-536 ;  administrative  tribunals, 
536. 

Courts  (Switzerland),  599-603. 

Courts  (Germany),  inferior  tribunals, 
652-653;  the  Reichsgericht,  653; 
in  republic?,  731. 

Cromwell,  Oliver,  accepts  office  of 
Protector,  28. 

Crown.     See  Kingship. 

Crown    colonies,    in    British    Empire, 

346-347- 

Custom,  as  factor  in  English  constitu- 
tion, 48-50. 

Curia,  in  medieval  England,  5. 


Daily  Telegraph,  sensational  interview 

with  Kaiser,  703-704. 
Decentralization,  in  France,  467,  471. 
Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man,  363- 

364. 

Deconcentration,  in  France,  471. 

Democratic  Nouvclle,  in  France,  499. 

Department,  as  area  of  senatorial 
elections,  409 ;  established  as  a  local 
government  area,  466;  experiments 
with  decentralization,  467  ;  central- 
ized control  restored,  468 ;  number, 
472 ;  the  prefect,  473 ;  the  conseil 
de  prefecture,  473;  the  general  coun- 
cil, 473-474;  proposal  to  abolish, 
482. 

Devolution,  movement  in  Great  Britain, 
201-205. 

Diet,  in  Switzerland  before  1798,  557; 
reconstructed  in  Switzerland  in  1802, 
558;  and  in  1815,  559;  decrees  dis- 
solution of  Sondcrbund,  561 ;  in 
German  Confederation,  610. 

Disestablishment,  question  in  England, 
303-306 ;   in  Wales,  306-308. 

District,  urban  and  rural,  in  England, 
225-227,  231,  232-233. 

District  and  Parish  Councils  Act,  226- 
227. 

Dublin,  Easter  rebellion,  317;  Irish 
republic  organized,  320. 

Duma,  established  in  Russia,  740. 

Ebert,  Frietlrich,  forms  provisional 
government  in  Germany,  711 ;  weak- 
ness of  government,  732-733. 

Education,  as  a  party  issue  in  Great 
Britain,  308-309;  Act  of  1902,  309- 
310;  bill  of  1906,  311-312. 

Education  Board  established,  84-85. 

Edward  I,  convokes  the  Model  Parlia- 
ment, 11-12. 

Edward  VII,  participation  in  public 
affairs,  65. 

Egypt,  establishment  of  British  con- 
trol, 347-348 ;  nationalist  movement, 
348. 

Elections,  how  carried  out  in  Great 
Britain,  134-136;  returning  officers, 
135;  polling,  135-136;  contests, 
137;  regulation  of  expenses,  137-139; 
methods    in    France,    415-416;     re- 


760 


INDEX 


forms  in  1913,  416-417;  procedure 
under  law  of  1919,  425  427;  methods 
in  Italy,  529  532;   in  Swiss  cantons, 

577-5S 1  ;  in  Swiss  national  govern 
ment,  587-590;  <>f  members  of  Ger- 
man  Reichstag,  643-645 ;  of  members 
of  Prussian  House  of  Representatives, 
662-665;  in  German  republic,  726- 
7-7- 

Elizabeth,  dealings  with  Parliament,  20. 

Emperor,  office  created   in   Germany, 

618,628;  privileges,  629;  legislative 

powers,  629-630;  judicial  functions, 
630;  executive  functions,  630-631; 
control  over  foreign  relations,  631- 
632;  control  over  armed  forces,  632- 

633- 
England,  political  importance-,  1  ;    An- 
glo-Saxon institutions,  2-4;   political 
development     in     Norman-Angevin 

period,  5-7;  Magna  Carta,  7-9; 
rise  of  Parliament,  9-13;  growth  of 
powers  of  Parliament,  13-14;  rise 
of  Privy  Council,  15;  origins  of 
great  law  courts,  15—16;  monarchy 
under  the  Tudors,  17-20;  parliamen- 
tary development  in  Tudor  period, 
20-23 ;  conflict  of  Stuart  and  parlia- 
mentary doctrines,  24-27;  Common- 
wealth and  Protectorate,  27-29; 
monarchy  restored,  29-31 ;  Revolu- 
tion of  1688-89,31-32;  Bill  of  Rights, 
32-33;  declining  powers  of  the  sov- 
ereign, 35-36;  rise  of  the  cabinet, 
37-40 ;  beginning's  of  political  parties, 
40-41 ;  union  with  Scotland,  4i«~43 ; 
union  with  Ireland,  43-45;  nature 
of  constitution,  46-51;  modes  of 
constitutional  amendment,  51-52; 
personal  rights,  54-55;  distribution 
of  powers  of  government,  55-57; 
title  and  succession  to  throne,  59-60; 
civil  list,  61-62;  distinction  between 
11  and  sovereign,  62-64;  uses  of 
monarchy,  64-68;  powers  of  crown, 
68-72;  the  ministry,  73-74;  the 
Treasury,  74-77;  the  fighting  ser- 
vices, 77-79;  the  Foreign  Office, 
79-81 ;  the  Home  Office,  81 ;  the 
Lord  Chancellor,  81-82;  the  law 
officers,  83;  the  regulative  boards, 
83-86 ;  administrative  reorganization 


since    [914,  permanent    1  ivil 

service,  89-92;  composition  of  cab 
inet,    04-100;     cabinel     procedure, 

100-105;  war  cabinet,  105  m; 
composition  of  Parliament,  113-115; 
quota  of  seats  in  House-  of  Commons, 
113, 121, 123, 1 52  ;  electoral  problems 
at    opening   of   nineteenth   century, 

[15    1  1  s  ;     reform    act    of    [832,    1  iS 

uo;  Chartist  movement,  120-121; 
reform  mi  of  1867,  121—122;  reform 
act  of  1884,  122  123;  redistribution 
of  scats  in  1885,  [23;  electoral  ques- 
tions from  1885  to  iqiN,  I.-; 
woman  suffrage  movement,  126-127; 
Representation  of  the  People  Act  of 
1 01  •'• .  ch-ctoral  procedure, 

i34-i37"  regulation  of  campaign 
expenditures,  137-139;  composition 
of  Souse  of  Lords,  140-145;  breach 
between  House  of  Lords  and  na- 
tion, 145;  proposals  for  reform  of 
House  oi  Lords,  146-148;  House  of 
Lords  and  money  bills,  1 48-1 51  ; 
Unionists  favor  referendum,  151-152; 
Parliament  Act,  152-156;  surviving 
questions  of  upper  chamber  reform, 
1 56-1 58;  desirable  features  of  upper 
chamber  reform,  158-161 ;  parlia- 
mentary sessions,  163-164;  officers 
of  House  of  Commons,  166-168; 
committees  of  House  of  Commons, 
1 69-1 71;  organization  of  House  of 
Lords,  171-172;  payment  of  mem- 
bers of  Parliament,  173-175;  Parlia- 
ment's loss  of  power  to  the  electorate, 
1  78 ;  cabinet  and  Parliament  in 
legislation,  178-180;  cabinet  and 
Parliament  in  administration,  180- 
182 ;  parliamentary  procedure  on 
public  bills,  182-185;  procedure  on 
money  bills,  186-191 ;  proposed 
changes  of  procedure,  191-194;  pri- 
vate bills,  195-196;  rules  of  House  of 
Commons,  196-199;  procedure  in 
House  of  Lords,  199-200;  parlia- 
mentary records,  200-201 ;  problems 
of  devolution,  201-205;  continuity 
of  legal  development,  206-207 ; 
growth  of  the  common  law,  207-209 ; 
rules  of  equity,  209-210;  general 
features  of  judicial  system,  210-212; 


INDEX 


761 


criminal  justice,  213-215;  civil  jus- 
tice, 215-217;  House  of  Lords  as  a 
court,  217-218;  Judicial  Committee 
of  Privy  Council,  218-219;  local 
government  before  1832,  220-222; 
Municipal  Corporations  Act,  222- 
224;  local  government  acts  of  1888 
and  1894,  225-227;  central  control 
of  local  affairs,  227-228;  county 
government,  228-230;  other  rural 
areas,  231-232;  borough  government, 
232-235;  government  of  London, 
236-237 ;  importance  of  parties, 
238-241 ;  era  of  Tory  ascendancy, 
241-242 ;  era  of  Whig  ascendancy, 
243-246;  Conservative  period  to 
1905,  246-250;  the  Liberal  revival, 
251-253 ;  the  Liberals  in  power,  253- 
255;  elections  of  1910,  255-257; 
parties  in  the  period  1914-20,  257- 
259;  party  composition,  260—262; 
geographical  distribution  of  party 
strength,  263-266;  party  organiza- 
tion in  Parliament,  266-268;  local 
party  organizations,  268-270;  na- 
tional party  organizations,  271-275; 
trade  unionism  and  socialism,  276- 
278;  rise  of  Labor  party,  278-280; 
influence  of  labor  on  legislation,  280- 
281 ;  relations  with  Ireland,  281-285 ; 
question  of  Irish  Home  Rule,  289- 
290;  Home  Rule  Bill  of  191 2,  290- 
295 ;  questions  of  tariff  and  taxation, 
297-301 ;  land  reform,  301-303 ; 
problem  of  disestablishment,  301- 
306;  education  question,  308-312; 
party  truce  in  191 4,  314;  coalition 
government,  315-316;  later  phases 
of  Irish  problem,  316-321 ;  Home 
Rule  Bill  of  1919,  321-324;  elections 
of  1918,  324-330;  party  develop- 
ments after  elections  of  1918,  330- 
335;  colonial  policy,  336-338;  self- 
governing  dominions,  338-346 ; 
crown  colonies  and  protectorates, 
346-348;  relations  with  India,  349- 
352;  problems  of  imperial  reor- 
ganization, 353-356;  source  of 
French  political  liberalism,  361 ; 
France  copies  cabinet  system,  369. 
Equity,  development  in  England,  209- 


Erfurt  Program,  697-699. 

Erzberger,  Matthias,  attacks  Pan- 
Germans,  707. 

Estates  General,  weakness,  359. 

Estimates,  preparation  and  adoption  in 
Great  Britain,  1 86-191 ;  in  France, 
439-441. 

Exchequer,  in  medieval  England,  5. 

Expenditures}  in  English  elections,  137- 
i39- 

Fabian  Society,  277. 

Federal  Assembly  (Switzerland),  com- 
position, 587;  National  Council, 
588-589 ;  Council  of  States,  589-590 ; 
powers,  590-592 ;  procedure,  592- 
593 ;  relation  to  referendum  and 
initiative,  593-597;  elects  members 
of  Federal  Council,  598. 

Federal  Council  (Switzerland),  adoption 
of  plural  executive,  597 ;  composition, 
597-598;  status  of  president,  598; 
organization,  598;  powers  and  func- 
tions, 599-600. 

Federalism,  nature  of,  53;  tendencies 
in  France,  483;  beginnings  in  Swit- 
zerland, 556;  abolished  in  Switzer- 
land in  1798,  557;  restored  in  1802, 
558;  confirmed  in  1815,  559;  essen- 
tial features  of,  563-565  ;  applied  in 
Switzerland,  565-567;  division  of 
powers  in  Switzerland,  567-571 ; 
relation  to  Swiss  citizenship,  571-573 ; 
in  North  German  Confederation, 
616-617;  in  German  Empire,  617- 
619,  621-622;  division  of  powers  in 
Germany,  623-625;  survivals  in 
German  republic,  723-725. 

Federal  Pact,  in  Switzerland,  559. 

Fehrenbach,  Konstantin,  becomes  Ger- 
man chancellor,  735. 

Fenian  movement,  283. 

Foreign  Office,  in  Great  Britain,  79-81. 

Fortescue,  Sir  John,  treatise  on  English 
government,  26. 

FortschriU,  in  Prussia  before  1871,  686. 

France,  government  in  the  Old  Regime, 
358-360;  growth  of  liberalism  in 
eighteenth  century,  360-362 ;  na- 
ture and  contributions  of  Revolution 
of  1789-94,  363-366;  Revolutionary 
constitutions,   366-367 ;     Napoleonic 


762 


INDI.X 


regime,  367-368;  Constitutional 
Charter  ol  1814,  368  $69;  revolution 
of  [830,370;  revolution  <>f  [848  and 
.1  Republic,  370-371 ;  Second 
Empire  established,  372  373;  Second 
Empire  collapses,  374;  National 
tbly   el«  b  onfli<  t    of 

parties,  370;  rehabilitation  of  cab- 
inet system,  376-378;  failure  of 
monarchist  programs,  378  370;  con- 
stitution of  Third  Republic  adopted, 
379-381  ;  form  and  character  of 
titution,  381  383;  constitutional 
amendments,  383-386;  election  of 
president,  388-389;  presidential 
term,  300;  immunities  of  president, 
391-393;  powers  of  president,  393- 
397;  composition  of  ministry,  398- 
400;  ministerial  organization,  400- 
402;  ministerial  responsibility,  402- 
404;  the  civil  service,  404-406; 
experiments  with  unicameral  and 
bicameral  legislatures,  407-408;  com- 
position of  Senate,  408-41 1 ;  composi- 
tion of  Chamber  of  Deputies,  411- 
412;  parliamentary  suffrage,  413; 
term  and  qualifications  of  deputies, 
414-415;  electoral  procedure,  415- 
418;  movement  for  electoral  reform, 
418-424;  electoral  law  of  ioiq.  424- 
427;  parliamentary  sessions,  428- 
430;  status  of  senators  and  deputies, 
430-432;  parliamentary  organization 
and  procedure,  432-436 ;  the  legisla- 
tive process,  436-43(1;  the  budget 
and  money  bills,  439-441 ;  parlia- 
mentary control  over  administration, 
442-443 ;  causes  of  ministerial  in- 
stability, 443-  i  origins  of  legal 
system,  448-449;  the  great  law  codes, 
449-452;  general  aspects  of  judicial 
em,  452-455;  appointment  and 
tenure  of  judges,  455-456;  ordinary 
1  ourts,  450-  .457;  administrative  law, 
459-400;  administrative  courts,  460- 
462  ;  the  Senate  as  a  court,  463 
local  government  before  1789,  465- 
466;  reorganization  of  local  govern- 
bet  ween  1789  and  1814,  466- 
d<  velopmenl  of  local  govern- 
ment in  nineteenth  century,  408-469; 
general    aspects   of   present    system, 


.lf>o  472 ;  the  department,  472-474; 
the  arrondissement,  474-475;  the 
1  anion,  475;  the  commune,  475-478; 
1  ramenl  of  Paris,  479-480;  prob- 
lems of  administrative  reform,  4X0- 
483;  origin-^  of  parties,  484-486; 
part}  development  t"  the  Greal  War, 
:-.),  rise  of  socialism,  489-492; 
the  Unified  S01  ialist  party,  492 
490;  parties  and  ministries  during 
the  Great  War,  496-498;  party 
reorganization  after  the  war,  498- 
500;  elections  of  1919,  500-501; 
summary  of  party  phenomena,  501- 

5°3- 

Frederick  the  Great,  treatises  on  gov- 
ernment, 609. 

Frederii  1.  111.  liberal  ideas,  677. 

Frederick  William  IV,  convokes 
1 '.  reinigter  Landtag,  61 2 ;  rejects 
imperial  crown  in  1848.  614;  grants 
constitution  to  Prussia.  ('14. 

Free  Church  Federation,  305. 

Free  trade,  establishment  in  England, 
243;   reaction  against,  251. 

Garibaldi.  Sicilian  expedition,  514-515. 

Gemeinde,  organization  in  Prussia,  673. 

Gemeinderat,  in  Switzerland,  586. 

Gan'rulili,  in  France  before  1789,  466. 

George  I,  accession,  59. 

George  III,  ideas  of  kingship,  35. 

George  V,  participation  in  public 
affairs,  65;  calls  conference  on  Irish 
question,  294. 

German  People's  party,  after  ionS,  712. 

Germany,  early  liberal  movements, 
608-609;  i"  Napoleonic  era,  (no; 
written  constitutions  granted,  6ll 
612;  liberal  movement  in 
612-613;  failure  of  movement,  613; 
constitution  granted  to  Prussi;. 
Prussia  assumes  leadership,  61 5  ;  Bis- 
marck's policies  and  measures,  615- 
616;  establishment  of  North  Ger- 
man Confederation,  616-617;  es- 
tablishment of  Empire,  617-618; 
Imperial  constitution  framed,  619; 
contents  of  constitution,  620;  mode 
of  constitutional  amendment,  621; 
federal  character  of  Empire,  621-622  ; 
division  of  powers  between   Empire 


INDEX 


763 


and  states,  623-625;  the  privileged 
states,  625-627,  654-655  ;  status  and 
privileges  of  Emperor,  628-629; 
miscellaneous  powers  of  Emperor, 
629-631;  Emperor's  control  over 
foreign  affairs  and  army,  631-633; 
the  Chancellor,  633-635 ;  absence  of 
ministerial  responsibility,  635-637 ; 
composition  of  Bundesrath,  637- 
639;  organization  and  procedure  of 
Bundesrath,  639-641 ;  functions  and 
powers  of  Bundesrath,  641-643 ; 
composition  of  Reichstag,  643;  elec- 
toral system,  644-645 ;  organization 
and  procedure  of  Reichstag,  645- 
647 ;  powers  and  actual  status  of 
Reichstag,  647-650;  the  codes  of 
law,  650-652;  the  courts,  652-653; 
the  Prussian  constitution  to  191 8, 
656-65S;  king  and  ministers  in 
Prussia,  658-660;  Prussian  HerretP- 
haus,  660-661 ;  Prussian  Abgeord- 
netenhans,  661 ;  Prussian  electoral 
system,  661-663 ',  movement  for 
electoral  reform  in  Prussia,  663-666; 
local  government  in  Prussia,  667-674 ; 
reasons  for  survival  of  absolutism, 
675-676 ;  the  Hohenzollern  dynasty, 
676-678;  William  II  and  Prussian 
doctrine  of  monarchy,  678-679; 
status  of  the  army,  680 ;  landholding 
aristocracy,  681 ;  Kultur,  681-683  ; 
general  aspects  of  party  system,  683- 
684 ;  early  parties,  685-686 ;  rise  of 
the  Center,  687 ;  growth  of  Social 
Democratic  party,  687-689;  elec- 
tions of  1907,  689-690;  elections  of 
1912,  691-692;  parties  on  eve  of 
Great  War,  693-695 ;  Social  Demo- 
cratic organization  and  activities, 
696-697;  Erfurt  Program,  697-699; 
the  revisionist  movement,  699-701 ; 
Social  Democrats  and  the  govern- 
ment, 701-702;  Daily  Telegraph 
episode,  703-704;  Zabern  incident, 
705-706 ;  movement  for  political  re- 
form during  the  Great  War,  706-708, 
political  changes  in  the  hour  of  de- 
feat, 708-710;  abdication  of  William 
II,  711;  socialist  government  estab- 
lished, 711-712;  new  parties  and  their 
programs,  712-713;   split  in  socialist 


ranks,  713-714;  the  Spartacists,  715; 
constituent  assembly  of  1919,  717; 
republican  constitution  framed,  718- 
720;  characteristics  of  new  consti- 
tution, 720-722;  method  of  amend- 
ment, 722;  nature  of  governmental 
system,  723-726;  the  National  As- 
sembly, 726-727  ;  the  National  Coun- 
cil, 727-729;  the  president,  729; 
the  chancellor  and  ministry,  729-731 ; 
the  judiciary,  731-732;  elections  of 
1920,  733-735;  change  of  party 
situation,  736. 

Giolitti,  influence  in  Italian  politics, 
545-546. 

Gladstone,  W.  E.,  premiership,  246- 
247 ;  Home  Rule  bills  defeated,  248- 
284. 

Government  of  National  Defense,  in 
France  in  1870-71,  374. 

Grand  Conseil,  in  Switzerland,  579-580. 

Grand  ordonnance,  449. 

Grand  Remonstrance,  27. 

Great  Britain,  creation  of,  41-43 ; 
union  with  Hanover,  59. 

Great  Council,  in  medieval  England,  6 ; 
relation  to  Parliament,  10-12,  14-15; 
relation  to  Privy  Council,  15-16. 

Grevy,  Jules,  resignation,  391. 

Griffith,   Arthur,  leader  of  Sinn  Fein, 

317- 
Guesde,  Jules,  revives  French  socialism, 

490. 
Guillotine,  a  form  of  closure,  198. 

Hanover,    union    with   Great   Britain, 

59- 

Hansard,  T.  C,  publisher  of  Parlia- 
mentary Debates,  201. 

Helvetic  republic,  557. 

Henry  II,  constitutional  development 
under,  6-7. 

Henry  VIII,  dealings  with  Parliament, 
20. 

Herrcnhaus.  See  House  of  Lords 
(Prussia). 

Hertling,  Count  von,  becomes  German 
chancellor,  708;  resigns,  709. 

High  Court,  in  England,  214-218. 

Hohenzollern  dynasty,  origins,  676; 
history,  677  ;  William  II  as  represent- 
ative, 678-680. 


764 


1NDF.X 


Holy  Roman  Empire,  weakness  and 
end,  ooo-fno. 

Home  Office,  in  Greal  Britain.  81; 
sup<.-r\  ision  "i  local  affairs 

Home  Rule.     See  Inland. 

I :  .if   Commons   (Great    Britain  1, 

bicameral  principle  established,  u; 
development  in  Tudor  period, 
present  membership,  113;  qualifica- 
tion of  members,  113;  women  made 
eligible,  114;  mode  of  resigning, 
114-115;  electoral  conditions  in 
early  nineteenth  century,  115  117; 
problem  of  redistribution  of 
117-11S;  reform  aet  of  1832,  tl8 
120;  reform  act  of  1S67,  120-122; 
reform  act  of  1884,  122-123;  redis- 
tribution of  seats  in  1885,  123-124; 
question  of  plural  voting,  125; 
over-representation  of  Ireland,  126; 
woman  suffrage,  126-127;  war-time 
movement  for  electoral  reform,  127- 
129;  suffrage  provisions  of  Repre- 
sentation of  People  Act  of  1018,  129- 
132;  other  provisions,  132-134; 
electoral  machinery  and  methods, 
134-137;  regulation  of  campaign 
expenditures,  137-139;  control  over 
money  bills  asserted,  149;  prospec- 
tive relations  with  House  of  Lords, 
159-161;  physical  surroundings,  164- 
166;  officers,  166-168;  committees, 
169-171;  privileges  of  members, 
172-173;  payment  of  members,  173- 
175;  consideration  of  public  non- 
financial  bills,  184-185;  considera- 
tion of  money  bills,  186-191. 

House  of  Lords  (Great  Britain),  in 
Tudor  period,  21-22;  abolished  in 
1649,  27;  restored  in  1660,  29; 
hereditary  peers  as  members,  141- 
142;  representative  peers,  142-143; 
law  lords,  143;  lords  spiritual,  143- 
144;  withdrawal  of  Welsh  bishops, 
144;  increase  in  size,  144-145; 
changed  position  in  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, 145;  reform  proposals  to  1000, 
146-148;  decline  of  control  <>\er 
money  bills,  148-150;  rejects  Finance 
Bill  of  1909,  150;  new  proposals  for 
reform,  150-152;  Lansdowne's  re- 
form bill,  152-153;    Parliament  Act 


of  mil,  154-155;  question  of  farther 
i.t. .mi,  1S0-15.S;  desirable  features 
of  a  reform,   158-159;    prospective 

status,    [59-161;    physical  surround 

ings,  io<>;  organizations,  171  [72; 
privileges,  [72  173;   procedure,  199- 

200;  judicial  functions  and  proce 
dure,  217-218;  frustrates  Liberal 
measures,  253-255. 

House  ..I"  I  <.r.;.-  (Prussia),  composition, 
<»(>o;     1  onservat  ive    chanu  it  r.    661; 
oization  and  powers,  666-  667. 

House    of    Representatives    (Pn 
composition,   661;     three-class   elec- 
toral   system,    661-663;     movement 
for    electoral    reform,    663-666;     or- 
ganization and  powers,  666-667. 

Humble  Pelilition  and  Advice,  28. 

Hundred,  in  early  England,  4. 

lord,      Thomas,      first      known 
Speaker  of  House  of  Commons,  167. 

Impeachment,     of     French     president, 

392 ;    of  other  French  officers,  404. 
Imperial   Conference  convened   during 

(■real      War,      108;      sessions     and 

character,  355-35°- 
Imperial     federation,    plans    for,    353- 

356. 
Imperial  War  Cabinet,   108. 
Independent     Labor     party     (U.     Kj. 

277;    opposes  declaration  of  war  in 

1014.  314- 
fndependent     Socialist     part;.',     estab 

lished,  713-714;   attitude  toward    the 

Great  War,  714-715;    in  elections  of 

1920,  734-735- 
Industrial   revolution,  effect  on  party 

alignments  in  England,  263-264. 
Initiative,  origins  in  Switzerland,  583 ; 

use  in  the  cantons,  584;  in  the  federal 

government,  595-59°;    results,  596- 

597- 
[ntendant,     in     France     during     Old 

Regime,  358,  466. 
India,  governmental  system,  349-351; 

modifications  in  1919,  352. 
Instrument  of  Government,  27-28. 
Interpellation,  in  France,  444-445;    in 

Italy,  523. 
Ireland,  union  with  England  in   1800, 

43-45 !    quota  of  seats  in  House  of 


INDEX 


765 


Commons,  113,  121,  123;  over- 
representation,  1 26 ;  quota  of  seats 
under  Act  of  1918,  132-133;  repre- 
sentation in  House  of  Lords,  142-143  ; 
legal  system,  210;  defeat  of  first  and 
second  Home  Rule  bills,  247-248; 
sources  of  discontent,  282 ;  dis- 
satisfaction with  union  of  1800, 
283 ;  rise  of  Home  Rule  movement, 
283-284;  governmental  system,  286- 
287 ;  arguments  for  Home  Rule,  287- 
288;  arguments  against  Home  Rule, 
289-290;  Home  Rule  Bill  of  191 2, 
290-292;  Ulster  protest,  292-294; 
Amending  Bill  of  1914,  294;  Home 
Rule  Act  receives  royal  assent,  295 ; 
attitude  in  early  portion  of  Great 
War,  316-317;  rise  of  Sinn  Fein, 
317-318;  convention  of  1918,  319; 
elections  of  1918,  320,  328-329; 
republic  declared,  320-321;  Home 
Rule  Bill  of  1 9 1 9,  321-324;  cam- 
paign pledges  of  coalition  ministry, 
326. 

Irish  Nationalist  party,  rise,  283-284; 
increased  power  after  1910,  285 ; 
attitude  on  Home  Rule  Bill  of  1912, 
291 ;  opposes  division  of  Ireland,  294 ; 
demands  enforcement  of  Home  Rule 
Act,  318;  routed  in  elections  of  1918, 
320,  329;  opposes  Home  Rule  Bill 
of  1919,  324. 

Italy,  political  condition  in  eighteenth 
century,  504;  Napoleonic  changes, 
505-509;  restoration  of  1S14-15, 
509-511;  revolutions  of  1821,  511; 
revolutions  of  1848,  511-512;  na- 
tional unity  achieved,  513-516;  na- 
ture of  constitution,  516-519;  the 
crown,  520-522;  composition  of 
ministry,  522;  functions  and  status 
of  ministers,  522-525;  composition 
of  Senate,  525-526;  weakness  of 
Senate,  526-527;  proposed  reforms, 
527-528;  composition  of  Chamber 
of  Deputies,  529;  development  of 
suffrage,  529-531;  electoral  law  of 
1912,  531-532;  parliamentary  or- 
ganization, 533 ;  parliamentary  pro- 
cedure, 533-534 ;  the  judiciary,  534- 
537 ;  general  features  of  local  govern- 
ment,  537;    the   province,  537-538; 


the  commune,  538-539 ;  law  of  Papal 
Guarantees  and  status  of  the  church, 
540-541 ;  papal  resistance  to  the 
state,  542-543 ;  rise  of  political 
parties,  543-544;  character  of  party 
politics,  545-546 ;  Republican  party, 
546;  Radical  party,  546;  growth  of 
socialism,  547-549;  re-entrance  of 
Catholics  into  politics,  549-552; 
People's  party,  552;  elections  of 
1919,  552-553- 

James  I,  views  on  government,  24. 

James  II,  overthrow  of,  31. 

Jaures,  Jean,  on  socialist  aims  in  France, 
491-492 ;  opposes  France's  entrance 
into  Great  War,  496. 

Jenks,  Edward,  on  the  uses  of  King- 
ship in  England,  67-78. 

John,  grants  the  Great  Charter,  7. 

Judicial  Committee,  of  British  Privy 
Council,  218-219. 

Judiciary.     See  Courts. 

Juge  de  paix,  established,  453;  func- 
tions, 456-457. 

Junkers,  in  Prussia,  681. 

Jury,  use  in  England,  214-215. 

Justice  of  the  peace,  in  England,  213- 
214,  221. 

Kantonsgericht;  in  Switzerland,  586. 

Kautsky,  Karl,  opposes  revisionism, 
700. 

Kingship  (England),  origins,  2-3; 
growth  of  power  in  Norman-Angevin 
period,  5 ;  restrictions  imposed  in 
Magna  Carta,  8-9;  in  Tudor  period, 
17-20;  views  of  James  I,  24;  abol- 
ished in  1649,  27;  restored  in  1660, 
29;  altered  basis  after  1689,  30-33; 
declining  powers  in  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, 35-36;  basis  of  title,  59; 
succession,  59-60;  regencies,  60; 
privileges,  61 ;  Civil  List,  61-62 ; 
crown  and  sovereign,  distinguished, 
62-63;  authority  and  uses  of  the 
sovereign,  64-65 ;  why  monarchy 
survives,  65-68;  origins  of  powers, 
68-70;  powers  of  crown  classified, 
70-72. 

Kingship  (France),  in  eighteenth  cen- 
tury.  358-360;     abolished   in    1792, 


766 


1X1 1 IX 


366;  restored  in  1814,  368;  again 
abolished  in  1848,  370;  efforts  to 
revive  in  1871-  75,  376  370. 

Kingship  (Italj  I,  status,  520  522. 

Kingship  (Prussia),  status,  6s8-:-659; 
theory  of,  678-680. 

£>«&,  organization,  672  '173. 

Kreistag,  in  Prussia,  673. 

Kultur,  nature  and  effects,  682-683. 

Labor  party  (Great  Britain  1.  rise, 
278;  success  in  elections  of  mod, 
278;  organization,  27c);  principles, 
280;  influence  on  legislation,  280- 
281 ;  supports  Irish  Home  Rule  in 
1912,  291;  opposes  election  of  1918, 
325;  course  in  this  election,  327- 
328;  disappointed  at  results,  329; 
status  in  new  Parliament,  331 ; 
reorganization,  332-335. 

Land,  reform  proposals  in  Great  Britain, 
301 ;  report  of  Acland  Committee, 
302-303 ;  reform  promised  by  coali- 
tion ministry  in  1918,  326. 

Landamman,  in  Switzerland,  577,  585. 

Land gcric hi,  652. 

Land  rat,  in  Switzerland,  577. 

Lands getneinde,  origins  and  history,  576 ; 
composition,  577;  meetings,  577; 
procedure,  578;  advantages  and  lim- 
itations, 578-579. 

Landtag  (Prussia),  bicameral  character, 
660 ;  composition  of  House  of  Lords, 
660-661 ;  composition  of  House  of 
Representatives,  661 ;  three-class 
electoral  system,  661-663 ;  move- 
ment for  electoral  reform,  663- 
666;  organization  and  powers,  666- 
667. 

Lansdowne,  Lord,  resolutions  on  upper 
chamber  reform,  151-152;  bill  on 
same  subject,  152-153. 

Law,  importance  and  continuity  in 
England,  206-207;  growth  of  com- 
mon law,  207-209;  rules  of  equity, 
209-210;  origins  in  France,  448-449; 
great  French  codes,  449-452 ;  ad- 
ministrative law  in  France,  459-460; 
made  uniform  in  Switzerland,  602- 
603 ;  unification  in  Germany,  650- 
651 ;   the  codes,  651-652. 

Law,    Bonar,    on    tariff    reform,    300; 


joins  Lloyd  George  in  election  mani- 
festo, 3s  5  326. 
Law  of  Papal  Guarantees,  provisions, 

540-541;    papal   refusal    to  accept, 

54* 

Legitimists,  in  France  in  [871,376. 

Leo  XIII,  issues  decrees  Non  Ixptdit 
and  .\  on  I. in  L  542. 

Lettre  <!<•  cachet,  360. 

Liberal  party  (Great  Britain),  position 
in  British  House  of  Lords,  146-148, 
mid  century  era  of  predom- 
inant ;  earlier  characteris- 
tics,   245-246;      revival,     251-252; 

-ion  to  power  in  1005,  252 ; 
triumph  in  elections  of  1006,  253; 
achievements  in  1006-09,  253-255; 
contest  with  House  of  Lords,  255- 
256;  in  elections  of  1010,  256-257; 
losses  in  period  1910-14,  258-259; 
tenets  and  tendencies,  260-261 ; 
composition,  262;  geographical  dis- 
tribution, 263-265;  Central  Ofhce, 
267 ;  rise  of  caucus,  269 ;  National 
Liberal  Federation,  272-275;  plans 
for  land  reform,  301-303 ;  advocates 
disestablishment,  304-308;  opposes 
Education  Act  of  1902,  310-311; 
failure  to  carry  education  bill  of 
1906,  311-312;  in  coalition  of  1915, 
315-316;  course  in  election  of  1918, 
327;  defeats  in  this  election,  329; 
period  of  dominance  ended,  330; 
revival  after  1918,  33*-335- 

Liberal  party  (Switzerland),  603-605. 

Liberal  Unionist,  secession,  247. 

Ligurian  republic,  established,  506; 
annexed  to  France,  507-508. 

Lloyd  George,  David,  finance  proposals 
rejected  in  1909,  149;  seeks  com- 
promise on  Irish  issue,  318;  forced  to 
abandon  Irish  conscription,  319; 
introduces  Home  Rule  Bill  of  1919, 
321 ;  campaign  pledges  in  1918,  324- 
326;  triumphs  in  elections  of  1918, 
329-330;  plan  to  convert  Coalition 
into  permanent  party,  334-335. 

Local  government  (Great  Britain), 
stages  of  development,  220-221 ; 
conditions  in  early  nineteenth  century, 
221-222;  Municipal  Corporations 
Act,    222-224;     mid-century   confu- 


INDEX 


767 


sion,  224-225;  Local  Government 
Act  of  1888,  225-226;  District  and 
Parish  Councils  Act  of  1894,  226- 
227;  central  control,  227-228;  county 
organization,  228-230  ;  the  rural 
district,  231;  the  parish,  231-232; 
the  poor-law  union,  232 ;  the  urban 
district,  232;  borough  government, 
233-235 ;  government  of  London, 
236-237. 
Local  government  (France),  system 
before  1789,  465-466;  changes  in 
1789-90,  466;  experiments  with 
decentralization,  467;  centralization 
revived,  468;  oscillations  during 
nineteenth  century,  469;  municipal 
code  of  1884,  470;  deconcentration, 
47 1 ;  symmetry  and  uniformity, 
471-472;  the  department  to-day, 
472-473 ;  prefect,  473 ;  conseil  de 
prefecture,  473 ;  general  council  of 
the  department,  473-474;  organiza- 
tion of  the  arrondissemcnt,  474-475 ; 
the  canton,  475 ;  legal  status  of  com- 
mune, 475  ;  number  and  size  of  com- 
munes, 476;  the  communal  council, 
476-477;  the  mayor,  477-478;  gov- 
ernment of  Paris,  479-480;  defects, 
480-482 ;     proposed    reforms,    482- 

483. 
Local   government    (Italy),   origins   of 
present    system,    537;     areas,    537; 
the  province,  537-538 ;  the  commune, 

538-539- 

Local  government  (Prussia),  reforms  in 
early  nineteenth  century,  667-668; 
reconstructed  by  Bismarck,  668; 
underlying  principles,  669-670;  the 
province,  670-672 ;  minor  areas,  672- 
674. 

Local  Government  Act  of  1888,  225-226. 

Local  Government  Board,  established, 
85-86;  superseded  by  ministry  of 
public  health,  86-87. 

Locke,  John,  on  English  electoral  sys- 
tem, 118;  influence  of  political  writ- 
ings, 362. 

Lombardy,  French  intervention  in, 
505;  returned  to  Austria,  509; 
annexed  to  Piedmont,  514. 

London,  government  of,  236-237. 

Lord  High  Admiral,  77. 


Lord  High  Chancellor,  history  and  func- 
tions, 81-82 ;  at  opening  of  a  Parlia- 
ment, 163;  presides  in  House  of 
Lords,  171-172;  nominates  and  ap- 
points judges,  212,  217. 

Lord  High  Treasurer,  75. 

Lord  Lieutenant,  of  Ireland,  286. 

Lords  of  Appeal,  in  House  of  Lords,  143 ; 
in  Judicial  Committee  of  Privy 
Council,  218. 

Lords  spiritual,  143-144. 

Louis  Napoleon  [Napoleon  III],  elected 
president  of  France,  371;  becomes 
emperor,  372;  captured  at  Sedan, 
384;  in  war  of  1859,  514. 

Lvov,  Prince,  heads  provisional  govern- 
ment in  Russia,  743. 

MacDonald,  J.  R.,  resigns  chairmanship 
of  parliamentary  labor  party,  314; 
defeated,  329. 

Macdonald,  William,  plan  for  devolu- 
tion, 204. 

Machinery  of  Government  Committee, 
report  of,  89. 

McLean,  Donald,  chosen  leader  of 
Liberal  party,  331.  . 

MacMahon,  Marshal,  elected  president 
of  France,  378. 

Magna  Carta,  grant  of,  7 ;  nature  and 
significance,  8-9. 

Majority  Socialist  party,  assumes  con- 
trol of  German  government,  711; 
attitude  toward  the  Great  War, 
714-715;  in  elections  of  1920, 
734-735 ;  lose  control  of  the  Govern- 
ment, 736. 

Mandamcnto,  in  Italy,  535,  537. 

Markievicz,  Countess  de,  elected  to 
Parliament,  320. 

Maximilian,  Prince,  becomes  German 
chancellor,  709;  names  Ebert  as 
successor,  711. 

Mayor,  becomes  elective  in  French 
communes,  469;  powers  and  func- 
tions, 477-478. 

Mensheviki  principles,  745. 

Merit  system,  established  in  England, 
90-91. 

Michaelis,  Georg,  becomes  German 
chancellor,  707-708. 

Mill,   John   Stuart,   advocates   woman 


76S 


IXDKX 


suffrage,     126;      and     proportional 
representation,  133. 

Ministry  (Great  Britain),  composition, 
: ;  1  in  I  reasury,  7.}  77 ;  Ad- 
miralty Board,  77  78;  War  'tin. 
70;  Foreign  Office,  7')  Sl ;  Home 
Office,  8i ;  Lord  BBgh  Chancellor, 
81-82;  Board  of  Trade,  83-84; 
1  of  Education,  84  85;  other 
regulative  boards,  85-  86 ;  reorganiza- 
tion after  1914,  86-88;  Ministry  of 
Health,  86-87;  distinguished  from 
cabinet,  93-95;  appointment  of 
nK-mbers,q6-ioo;  responsibility,  100- 
101 ;  practical  immunity  from  parlia- 
mentary control  in  administration, 
180-182. 

Ministry  (France),  composition,  398; 
appointment,  399;  selection  of 
premier,  399-400;  organization,  400- 
401  ;  the  under-secretaries,  401- 
402;  responsibility,  402-404;  origi- 
nates bills,  436-437;  degree  of  in- 
stability, 442 ;  causes  of  instability, 
443-446;  elements  of  continuity, 
446-447. 

Ministry  (Italy),  relation  to  king,  520- 
521;  composition,  522;  functions, 
523;  status  in  Parliament,  523-524; 
frequent  changes,  524;  ordinance 
power,  524-525. 

Ministry  (Germany),  composition  in 
Prussia,  659;  irresponsibility,  659- 
660;  composition  in  Empire,  634- 
635;  lack  of  responsibility,  635-637, 
704-705  ;  status  in  the  republic,  729- 

73i- 
Ministry  (Russia),  becomes  responsible 

to  Duma,  743. 
Monmouthshire,     disestablishment     of 

Church,  304. 
Montesquieu,  political  views,  360-362, 

365. 
Municipal  Corporations  Act,  222. 
Mutiny  Act,  79. 

Naples,  ruled  by  Spanish  Bourbons, 
504;  conquered  by  French,  506; 
Bourbon  rule  restored,  510;  revolu- 
tion of  1821,  six;  revolution  of 
1848,  511-512;  annexed  to  kingdom 
of  Italy,  515. 


Napoleon  I,  political  regime  in  France, 
(68;  supervises  codification  of 
French  law,  450-451 ;  invades  Italy, 
505;  sets  up  Italian  republics,  505- 
506;  instigates  monarchical  reaction, 
506-500;  predicts  Italian  unifica- 
tion, 510-511;  intervenes  in  Switzer- 
land, 556;  reconstructs  Swiss  govern- 
ment in  1802,  558. 

Napoleon  III.    See  Louis  Napoleon. 

National  Assembly  (France),  elected  in 
187 1,  374;  tasks,  375;  conflict  of 
parties,  376;  passes  Rivet  law,  377; 
adopt-  constitution  and  disbands, 
379-381 ;  elects  president,  388. 

National  Assembly  (Germany),  com- 
position and  powers,  726-727. 

National  Council  (Germany),  com- 
position and  powers,  727-729. 

National  Council  (Switzerland),  com- 
position, 587-588;  officers,  589; 
powers  and  procedure,  590-593. 

National  Economic  Council,  in  Ger- 
many, 722. 

National  Liberal  Federation,  272-275. 

National  Liberal  party  origins,  686; 
in  elections  of  191 2,  691-692;  status 
in  1914,  695;  succeeded  by  German 
People's  party,  712-713. 

National  People's  party,  in  Germany 
after  1918,  712. 

National  Union  of  Conservative  Asso- 
ciations, 271-272. 

Navy,  administration  in  Great  Britain, 
77-78;   in  German  Empire,  632. 

Newcastle  Program, "274. 

Nicholas  II,  abdicates,  743. 

Nominations,  in  England,  135;  in 
France,  415. 

Nonconformists,  advocate  disestablish- 
ment, 303-308;  oppose  Education 
Act  of  1902,  310. 

Non  Expedil,  542. 

Non  Licet,  542. 

North  America  Act,  340. 

North  German  Confederation,  formed, 
616-617;  merged  in  German  Em- 
pire, 617-618. 

Oberpr&sident,  in  Prussian  province,  671. 
O'Connell,  Daniel,  leads  movement  for 
Irish  autonomy,  283 


INDEX 


769 


Orders  in  council,  in  England,  71-72. 
Osborne  Judgment,  174. 

Palmer,  W.  W.  (Lord  Selborne),  obliged 
to  accept  seat  in  House  of  Lords,  141. 

Paris,  government  of,  479-480. 

Parish,  in  England,  221-222,  231-232. 

Parliament  (Great  Britain),  beginnings, 
9-11;  meeting  of  1295,  n-12; 
organized  on  bicameral  principle,  12  ; 
growth  of  powers,  13-14;  position 
under  the  Tudors,  19-23 ;  assertions 
of  power  under  early  Stuarts,  25; 
during  Commonwealth  and  Protec- 
torate, 27-28;  effect  of  Restoration, 
29-33 ;  ascendancy  of  House  of 
Commons,  36-37;  power  to  amend 
constitution,  51-52;  omnipotence, 
53-55 ;  control  of  royal  expenditures, 
61-62;  relation  to  cabinet,  105-106; 
leadership  among  parliamentary 
bodies,  112;  number  of  members, 
113;  qualifications,  113;  women 
become  eligible,  114;  electoral 
problems  at  opening  of  nineteenth 
century,  n  5-1 18;  reform  act  of 
1832,  1 18-120;  reform  act  of  1867, 
121-122;  reform  act  of  1884,  122- 
123;  redistribution  of  seats  in  1885, 
123;  electoral  questions  from  1885 
to  1918,  124-126;  woman  suffrage 
movement  126-127;  war-time  move- 
ment for  electoral  reform,  127-129; 
Representation  of  the  People  Act  of 
1918,  129-134;  maximum  life,  134; 
electoral  procedure,  134-137;  regula- 
tion of  campaign  expenditures,  137- 
139;  composition  of  House  of  Lords, 
140-144;  increased  size  of  House  of 
Lords,  144-145 ;  breach  between 
House  of  Lords  and  nation,  145 ; 
proposals  for  reform  of  House  of 
Lords,  146-148;  House  of  Lords  and 
money  bills,  148-149;  movement 
for  upper  chamber  reform  in  1909-10, 
150-152;  Parliament  Act  of  191 1, 
152-155 ;  effects  of  the  Act,  155-156 ; 
surviving  questions  of  upper  chamber 
reform,  156-159;  prospective  rela- 
tions of  the  two  houses,  159-161 ; 
sessions,  162-163;  meeting  place, 
164-166;    officers  of  House  of  Com- 

3D 


mons,  166-168 ;  committees,  169-171 ; 
organization  of  House  of  Lords,  171- 
172  ;  privileges  of  members,  172-173 ; 
payment  of  members,  173-175;  loss 
of  power  to  electorate,  177-178; 
ascendancy  of  cabinet  in  legislation, 
178-180;  amount  of  control  over 
administration,  180-182;  general 
aspects  of  procedure,  182-183;  pro- 
cedure on  public  non-financial  bills, 
183-185;  principles  of  procedure  en 
money  bills,  186-187;  preparati  n 
and  scrutiny  of  the  estimates,  189- 
190;  the  budget,  1 90-1 9 1 ;.  proposed 
changes  of  procedure  on  money 
bills,  191-194;  private  bills,  195-196; 
rules  of  House  of  Commons,  196-197 ; 
closure,  197-198 ;  votes  and  divisions, 
198-199;  procedure  in  House  of 
Lords,  199-200;  records,  200-201; 
congestion  of  business,  201-202; 
plans  for  devolution,  202-204  '■>  report 
of  Speaker's  Conference  on  the  sub- 
ject, 204-205 ;  party  organization  in, 
266-267;  legislative  power  over 
colonies,  339. 

Parliament  (Ireland),  abolished,  43-45. 

Parliament  (France),  under  constitu- 
tion of  1795,  367;  under  constitution 
of  1 81 4,  369-370;  under  constitution 
of  1848,  371;  changes  in  1869-70, 
373;  responsibility  of  ministers  to, 
402-404;  composition  of  Senate, 
408-411;  constitutional  and  stat- 
utory basis  of  Chamber  of  Deputies, 
411-412;  growth  of  Chamber  of 
Deputies,  412-413;  parliamentary 
suffrage,  413;  term  and  qualifica- 
tions of  deputies,  414-415;  electoral 
procedure,  415-417;  movement  for 
scrutin  dc  liste,  41S-421 ;  movement 
for  proportional  representation,  421- 
422;  electoral  reform  bills,  422-423; 
electoral  law  of  1919,  424-427; 
meeting  place,  428;  sessions,  429; 
publicity  of  proceedings,  430 ;  status 
of  members,  430-432;  compensation, 
432;  officers,  432-434;  bureaus  and 
committees,  434;  development  of 
standing  committees,  435-436;  rules, 
437;  legislative  initiative,  436-437; 
procedure  on  bills,  438-439;  budget- 


77Q 


INDIA 


ary  procedure,  439-441;  control 
over  administration,  443-444;  inter- 
pellation, 444  445;  disuse  of  power 
of  dissolution,  445   | 

Parliament  (Italy),  control  over  minis- 
ters, 523;  composition  of  Senate, 
525  526;  causes  of  Senate's  weak- 
ness, proposals  for  upper 
chamber  reform,  527-528;  election 
of  deputies,  529;  the  suffrage  prior 
to  1912,  530-531;  electoral  law  of 
[912,  531-532;  organization  and 
procedure,  533-534- 

Parliament  (Switzerland).  Sec  Federal 
As  embly. 

Parliament  Act,  enacted,  152-154; 
provisions  and  effects,  154-156. 

Parliamentary  anil  Municipal  Elections 
Act,  136-137. 

Parliamentary  Counsel  to  the  Treasury, 

183. 

Parnell,  Charles  Stewart,  leads  Irish 
Nationalists,  284. 

Parthenopa;an  republic,  established, 
506. 

Parties  (Great  Britain),  rise,  40-41; 
importance  and  uses,  238-239;  rela- 
tion to  cabinet  system,  239-240; 
bi-party  system,  240-241 ;  Tory 
ascendancy  in  early  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, 241-242;  mid-century  period 
of  Liberal  rule,  243-246;  second 
period  of  Conservative  power,  246- 
250;  the  Liberal  revival,  251-253; 
achievements  and  disappointments 
of  the  Liberals,  253-255  ;  contests  of 
1909-10,  255-257;  developments  in 
1910-14,  258-259;  composition,  260- 
262;  geographical  distribution,  263- 
266;  organization  in  Parliament, 
266-267;  Central  Office,  267-268; 
local  organization,  268-270;  Con- 
servative National  Union,  271-272; 
National  Liberal  Federation,  272- 
275;  rise  of  Labor  party,  278-280; 
influence  of  Labor  party  on  legisla- 
tion, 280-281 ;  rise  of  Irish  National- 
ist party,  283-284;  Home  Rule 
bill  of  1912,  290-295;  issues  classi- 
fied, 296-297;  tariff  issue,  297-300; 
taxation  questions,  300-301 ;  land 
reform,    301-303;      disestablishment 


of  tin-  Church,  303-308;    educational 

es,   308-312;    trine  declared   in 

[914,314;  coalition  principle  adopted, 

315—3 id;  renewal  of  Iri.di  issue,  317- 
321;  Home  Rule  Hill  <>f  1919,  321- 
324;  campaign  of  1918,  324-328; 
results    "f   elo  tions   of    eg 

330;       alignments      and      tendencies 

after  [918,  330-335- 

Parties  1 1  ran.  e),  multiplicity  and 
changeableness,  443;  beginnings, 
484-4.^0;  alignments  before  the 
Great  War,4  6  480;  rise  of  socialism, 
489-4(1 1  ;  socialist  unification,  491- 
493;  growth  and  character  of  Unified 
Socialists,  494-496;  coalition  minis- 
tries of  war  period,  496-498;  new 
alignments  after  the  war,  498-500; 
effect  of  elections  of  191 9,  500-501 ; 
nebulous  character,  501-503. 

Parties  (Italy),  beginnings,  543-544; 
characteristics,  545-546;  Republi- 
cans, 546;  Radicals,  546;  rise  of 
Socialists,  547-548;  socialist  re- 
formism, 548-549;  Catholics  re- 
enter politics,  550-552;  formation 
of  People's  party,  552;  elections  of 
1919,  552-553- 

Parties  (Switzerland),  origins,  603; 
present  situation,  604-605;  organiza- 
tion and  machinery,  605-607. 

Parties  (Germany),  general  aspects, 
683-685;  older  groupings,  685-686; 
rise  of  the  Center,  687;  growth  of 
Social  Democrats,  687-689 ;  elections 
of  1907,  689-690;  elections  of  191 2, 
691-692;  Conservatives  on  eve  of 
Great  War,  693-694 ;  Center,  694- 
695;  Liberals,  695;  Radicals,  695; 
Social  Democratic  organization,  696- 
697;  Erfurt  Program,  697-699; 
revisionist  movement,  699-701 ;  So- 
cial Democrats  and  the  »ovcrnment, 
701-702;  new  groupings,  in  1918, 
712-714. 

Payment  of  members,  earlier  history  in 
England,  173;  demanded  by  the 
Chartists,  173;  effect  of  Osborne 
Judgment,  174;  provided  for  in  191 1, 
174-175;  in  France,  432;  in  Switzer- 
land, 590-593;   in  Germany,  646. 

Peel,  Robert,  premiership,  243. 


INDEX 


771 


Peerage,  in  British  House  of  Lords,  141- 
142. 

People's. party  in  Italy,  551-552. 

Piedmont,  annexed  to  France,  507 ;  in- 
dependence restored,  509 ;  revolution 
of  1821,  511;  constitution  granted, 
512  ;  becomes  leader  in  Italian 
unification,  513;  Cavour's  policies, 
513-514;  annexations  in  1859-60, 
514-515;  merged  in  kingdom  of 
Italy,  51S-516.  _ 

Pitt,  author  of  Union  Act  of  1800,  44. 

Pius  IX,  refuses  to  accept  Law  of  Papal 
Guarantees,  542. 

Pius  X,  relaxes  ban  on  political  activity 
of  Catholics  in  Italy,  550. 

Place  Act,  97. 

Plural  voting,  movement  to  abolish 
in  England,  125;  restricted  by  act 
of  1918,  130. 

Poincare,  Raymond,  describes  French 
presidential  election,  389. 

Poor-law,  administration  in  England, 
222-223,  232- 

Poor  Law  Board,  superseded  by  Local 
Government  Board,  225. 

Pope,  loses  temporal  possessions,  540; 
provided  for  in  Law  of  Papal  Guaran- 
tees, 541 ;  refuses  to  accept  new  ar- 
rangements, 542-543;  relaxes  ban 
on  political  activity  of  Catholics  in 
Italy,  550;  sanctions  formation  of 
People's  party,  551. 

Post  Office,  in  Great  Britain,  76. 

Poyning's  Law,  43. 

Prefect,  established,  in  France,  468; 
powers  and  functions,  473-474;  in 
Paris,  479-480 ;  in  Italian  province, 
537- 

Prerogative,  development  in  England, 
68-69. 

President  (France),  mode  of  election, 
388-389 ;  term,  390 ;  qualifications  and 
re-eligibility,  391 ;  immunity  from 
political  responsibility,  392;  powers, 
392-395;  relations  with  ministers, 
396-397;  selection  of  premier,  399- 
400;  power  to  dissolve  Chamber  of 
Deputies,  429;  right  to  initiate 
legislation,  436. 

President  (Switzerland),  597-598. 

President,  in  German  republic,  729. 


Preuss,  Hugo,  prepares  draft  of  German 
constitution,  719,  723. 

Prime  minister,  mode  of  selection  in 
Great  Britain,  96-97 ;  nominates 
other  ministers,  97-100;  leadership, 
102-104;  selection  in  France,  399- 
400;  relation  to  other  ministers, 
400-402;   in  Italy,  522-523. 

Prince  of  Wales,  membership  in  House 
of  Lords,  140. 

Privy  Council,  origins,  15-16;  impor- 
tance in  Tudor  period,  18-19;  rise 
of  cabinet  from,  37-38;  organization 
and  functions,  93-94;  functions  of 
Judicial  Committee,  218-219. 

Procedure,  on  public  non-financial 
bills  in  British  Parliament,  182-185; 
on  money  bills,  186-191;  proposed 
alterations,  191-194;  on  private 
bills,  195-196;  in  French  Parliament, 
436-441 ;  in  Italian  Parliament,  533- 
534;   in  German  Reichstag,  645-647. 

Progressist  Republicans,  in  France,  488. 

Progressive  party,  in  Prussia  before 
1871,  685. 

Proportional  representation,  movement 
in  England,  133 ;  advocated  in  France, 
421-422;  adopted  in  1919,  425-427; 
in  Switzerland,  580-581. 

Prorogation,  of  British  Parliament,  163. 

Protectorate,  in  England,  28. 

Province,  area  of  Italian  local  govern- 
ment, 537-^38;  organization  in 
Prussia,  670-671. 

Provinzialausschuss,  in  Prussia,  671. 

Provinziallandtag,  in  Prussia,  671. 

Provhizidlrath,  in  Prussia,  671. 

Provisional  orders,  196. 

Prussia,  liberal  movement  in  1848, 
612-613;  failure  of  movement,  614; 
receives  constitution,  614;  builds  up 
Zollverein,  615;  Bismarck's  policies 
and  measures,  615-616;  war  with 
Austria,  616;  creates  North  German 
Confederation,  616-617;  creates  the 
German  Empire,  617-618;  special 
position  in  the  Empire,  625-627, 
654-655 ;  nature  of  constitution, 
655-657;  the  king,  658-659;  the 
ministers,  659-660;  the  Herrenhaus, 
660-661 ;  the  Abgeordnetenkaus,  661; 
three-class  electoral  system,  661-663; 


772 


INDKX 


movement  for  electoral  reform,  663 
665 ;  functions  and  powers  <>f  Landtag, 
666-667;  development  of  local  gov- 
ernment, 667-669;  underlying  prin- 
ciples of  administration,  669;  the 
province,  070  672;  minor  areas, 
>ur\  Lval  of  absolutism, 
675  070 ;  the  Eiohenzollern  dynasty, 
676-678;      William     II     and     divine 

right,  678-680;  status  of  army,  680; 

the  Junkers,  68]  ;    Ktdtur,  (181-682; 

political  parties,  683-702;    electoral 

reform     promised,    707;     king    and 

crown  prince  abdicate,  71  1 
Public  Health,  ministry  established  in 

Great  Britain,  S6-87. 
Public    opinion,     increased    power    in 

England,  177-178. 

Qualification  of  Women  Act,  114. 
Quirinal,  540. 

Radical  party,  formed  in  France,  485; 
in  bloc,  488;  in  Italy,  546;  in  Switzer- 
land, 603-605 ;  in  Prussia  before 
1871,  686;  losses  in  191 2,  692; 
status  in  1914,  695. 

Radical  Socialist  party,  in  France, 
488,  494;    breaks  up,  499,  501. 

Reactionaries,  in  France,  485. 

Records  cf  British  Parliament,  200-201. 

Referendum,  growth  of  idea  in  England, 
52;  Lord  Lansdowne's  resolutions 
favoring,  151-152;  as  a  party  issue 
in  Great  Britain,  297;  origins  in 
Switzerland,  581  ;  operation  in  the 
cantons,  582-583;  in  the  federal 
government,  593-594;    results,  594- 

595- 

Eegierungsbezirk,  in  Prussia,  672. 

ungs president,  in  Prussia,  672. 
Regiertingsrat,  in  Switzerland,  584. 
Regionalism,  in  France,  482-483. 
Registration  of  voters,  provisions  of  act 

of  1918  in  Great  Britain,   133-134; 

in  France,  413. 
Reichsgericht,  653,  731. 
Reichskanzler.     See  Chancellor. 
Reichsraih,    composition    and    powers, 

727-729. 
Reichstag,   approves  German   imperial 

constitution,  619;   composition,  643; 


distribution   of  seats,  644;    electoral 

system,    644  645;     sessions,    645; 

pay  of   members,   646;    organization 

ami  procedure,  646-647;  lack  of 
power,  6 1 ,  649;  mediocrity  of  mem- 
bers, 649  650;    in  German  republic, 

727. 
Republicanism,   early   views  on,   365; 
rise  in  1  ran*  e,  government 

of  I  -"irst  French  Republic,  367; 
triumphs  in  [848,  370;  gives  way  to 
Second  Empire,  371-372;  again 
triumphs  in  1871-75,  374~379; 
constitution  of  Third  French  Repub- 
lic, 381-386;  triumphs  in  Germany 
in  1918,  711 ;  republican  constitution 
framed,  718-720;  characteristics  of 
constitution,  720-723;  triumphs  in 
Russia,  743-744;  as  applied  under 
Russian  So\  iel  1  onstitution,  748-754. 

Republican  party,  in  France,  484-486; 
in  Italy,  546. 

Restoration,  in  England,  28-30. 

Revisionism,  in  Germany,  099-701. 

kil" it.  Alexander,  premier  in  France, 
497-498. 

Rivet,  Charles,  introduces  bill  concern- 
ing French  presidency  and  ministry, 

377- 

Rome,  becomes  capital  of  Italy,  540. 

Rosebery,  Lord,  becomes  prime  minis- 
ter. 96,  249;  proposals  for  upper 
chamber  reform,  148;  Chesterfield 
speech,  251. 

Rousseau,  Jean  Jacques,  political  views, 
361-362. 

Rules,  of  British  House  of  Commons, 
196-197. 

Russia,  early  political  development, 
738-741 ;  revolution  of  1905,  741- 
742;  political  unsettlement  during 
Great  War,  742-744;  revolution  of 
March,  191 5,  745;  rise  of  Soviets, 
745-746  ;  bolshevist  revolution, 
746;  constitution  of  1918,  748-751; 
soviet  system  of  government,  751- 
754. 

Salisbury,     Marquis    of,    premiership, 

247-249. 
Scotland,  union  with  England,  42-43; 

quota,  seats  in  House  of  Commons, 


INDEX 


773 


113,  121,  123,  132;  representation 
in  House  of  Lords,  142 ;  legal  system, 
210;  Liberal  preponderance  in,  265. 
Scrutin  d'arrondissement,  periods  of  use 
in  France,  418-419;  objections  to, 
420-421;   abandoned  in  1919,  425. 

Scrutin  de  liste,  under  French  constitu- 
tion of  1814,  369 ;  under  constitution 
of  1848,  371 ;  periods  of  use  in  France, 
418-419;  arguments  for,  420-421; 
relation  to  proportional  representa- 
tion, 421-422 ;  reestablished  by  law  of 
1919,  425. 

Seize  Mai  crisis,  445. 

Select  Committee  on  Estimates,  193. 

Select  Committee  on  National  Expendi- 
ture, report  of  in  1918,  193. 

Senate  (France),  right  of  interpellation, 
403 ;  composition,  408-409 ;  elec- 
toral changes  in  1884,  410;  proposal 
of  direct  election,  410-41 1;  assent 
required  for  dissolution  of  Chamber 
of  Deputies,  414;  place  of  meeting, 
428;  sessions,  429-430;  compensa- 
tion, 432 ;  officers,  432-433  ;  bureaus 
and  committees,  433-436 ;  process  of 
legislation,  436-439 ;  interpellation, 
444-445;  as  a  high  court  of  justice, 
463-464. 

Senate  (Italy),  composition,  525; 
growth,  526;  causes  of  weakness, 
526-527;  proposals  for  reform,  527- 
528;  organization  and  procedure, 
533-534- 

Separation  of  powers,  in  England,  56- 
57- 

Sheriff,  in  early  England,  4-5. 

Shire,  in  early  England,  4. 

Simon  de  Montfort,  convenes  a  parlia- 
ment in  1265,  n. 

Sindaco,  in  Italian  communes,  539. 

Sinn  Fein,  origins  and  aims,  317; 
holds  convention  at  Dublin,  319; 
successes  in  elections  of  19 18,  320, 
328-329;  opposes  Home  Rule  Bill  of 
1019,  322-323. 

Smith,  Thomas,  treatise  on  English 
government,  23. 

Social  Democratic  party,  in  Switzer- 
land, 604-605 ;  established  in  Ger- 
many, 687;  growth,  687-688;  in 
elections  of  1907,  690;    in  elections 


of  1912,  691-692;  organization  and 
activities,  696-697 ;  Erfurt  Program, 
697-699 ;  revisionist  movement,  699- 
700 ;  moderate  character,  701 ;  es- 
tablishes provisional  government  in 
Germany,  711;  splits  into  two  groups, 
713-714;  in  elections  of  1920,  734- 
736._ 

Socialism,  growth  in  Great  Britain,  277- 
278;  rise  in  France,  489-490; 
dissensions,  491-492 ;  unification, 
492-493;  growth  after  1905,  493- 
494 ;  aims,  494~495  5  prospects,  495- 
496;  status  after  Great  War,  499; 
loss  in  elections  of  191 9,  500;  be- 
ginnings in  Italy,  547-548 ;  reformism 
in  Italy,  548-549;  opposition  to 
Italy's  entrance  into  Great  War,  551 ; 
success  in  elections  of  1919,  552; 
status  in  Switzerland,  604-605 ; 
organization  in  Germany  after  1850, 
687-689 ;  in  elections  of  1907  and 
191 2,  690-692;  organization  and 
activities,  696-697 ;  Erfurt  Program, 
697-699;  revisionist  movement,  699- 
701 ;  in  control  of  German  govern- 
ment, 711-714. 

Society  for  Constitutional  Information, 
118-119. 

Solicitor- General,  in  Great  Britain,  83. 

Sonderbund,  in  Switzerland,  560. 

Sonderrechte,  in  Germany,  626. 

South  Africa,  acquires  self-government, 
345 ;   governmental  system,  345-346. 

Sovereignty,  location  in  Switzerland, 
566-567 ;   in  German  Empire,  622. 

Soviets,  origins,  744;  pass  under  Bol- 
shevist control,  746. 

Spartacist  (Communist)  party  in  Ger- 
many in  1918,  715;  opposes  election 
of  1919,  717. 

Speaker,  powers  conferred  by  Parlia- 
ment Act  of  1911,  154;  election,  166- 
167;  functions,  167-168;  compared 
with  president  of  French  Chamber, 

433- 
Speaker's    Conference  on   Devolution, 

report  of,  204-205. 
Spoils    system,    in    England,    90;     in 

France,  404-406. 
Staatsgerichthof,    in    German    republic, 

731- 


774 


INDEX 


Stadtrat,  in  Switzerland,  585. 

Stai  Chamber,  court  of,  211. 

Statute  fondatnentale  del  regno,  granted 
in  Piedmont,  51a;  becomes  constitu 
don  of  united  Italy,  515  516;  char- 
acteristics, 516-519. 

Statutory  orders,  in  England,  71-72. 

Stein,  Baron,  reform  of  Prussian  local 
government,  'no,  667. 

Sub-prefect,  in  France,  474. 

Suffrage,  English,  statute  of  1420,21- 
22;  state  in  England  in  early  nine- 
teenth century,  110-117;  as  altered 
by  reform  act  of  1832,  120;  by  at  t  of 
[867,  [2I-I22J  demand  by  women, 
126-127;  bill  of  1912,  127-128; 
alterations  by  act  of  191S,  129-132; 
arguments  on  woman  suffrage,  131; 
status,  in  France,  413;  in  Italy 
before  1912,  529-531;  under  electoral 
law  of  1912,  531-532;  in  Germany 
before  1918,  643-644,  661-665 ;  in 
German  republic,  726-727;  in  Russia 
under  constitution  of  191 8,  748-751. 

Supply  services,  in  Great  Britain,  187- 
188. 

Supreme  Court  of  Judicature,  in  Eng- 
land, 217. 

Switzerland,  political  importance,  554- 
555  J  physical  basis  of  political  devel- 
opment, 555 ;  races  and  religions, 
555-556;  French  intervention  of 
1798,  556-558;  reorganization  in 
1S03,  558;  and  in  1815,  559-560; 
the  Sonderbund,  560;  constitution 
of  1848,  561;  constitution  of  1874, 
561-562;  form  of  constitution,  562; 
federal  sj  eminent,  565; 

relations  of  federal  and  cantonal  gov- 
ernments, 566-507;  division  of  pow- 
ers, 567-568;    military  system,  568; 

eminent  n 
public  finances  570;  cantonal  ad- 
ministration of  federal  laws,  571; 
citizenship  and  naturalization,  571- 
572;  rights  of  the  individual,  573; 
status  of  cantons,  574-575;  the 
Landsgemeinden,  575-579;  cantonal 
legislatures,  579-5S0;  proportional 
representation,  5X0;  cantonal  refer- 
endum, 581-583;  cantonal  initiative, 
583-584;      cantonal    administration, 


cantonal   judiciary,    586; 

National   Council,   5SS-589;    Council 

of  States,  589  500;  powers  of  Federal 
\  embly,  590-592;  procedure  of 
Fedei  '  \  embly,  592-593;  federal 
referendun  ;    federal  initia- 

tive, 595  ,M,  ;  Federal  ( louni  il, 
>oo;  the  president,  507-598; 
the  judiciary,  (>oo-6o3;  development 
of  political  parties,  603-005;  party 
organizal  ion,  (>oo  007. 

Tariff,  as  a  party  issue  in  Great  Britain, 

298-301. 

TarilT  reform,  advocated  by  Joseph 
Chamberlain,  251. 

TarilT  Reform  League,  298-299. 

Taxation,  as  a  party  issue  in  Great 
Britain,  300-301  ;  control  in  Switzer- 
land, 570. 

Thiers,  Adolph,  becomes  "chief  of  the 
executive  power,"  -375;  difficulties 
of  position,  377;  made  president, 
377 ;  declares  tor  republicanism,  378; 
resigns,  378. 

Tiberine  republic,  established,  506. 

Tocqueville,  Alexis  de,  view  of  English 
constitution,  46-47. 

Tory  part\',  in  seventeenth  century,  41 ; 
ascendancy,  241-242.  See  Conserva- 
tive party. 

Township,  in  early  England,  3-4. 

Trade  union  development  in  Great 
Britain,  276-277. 

Trade  Union  Act,  of  1913,  174-175. 

Treasury  ((.real  Britain),  organization 
and  functions,  74-77;  part  in  pre- 
paring the  estimates,  188-191. 

Treasury  Bench,  165. 

Treaty-making,  in  Great  Britain,  80; 
in  German  Empire,  631. 

Uffici,  in  Italian  Parliament,  533. 
Ulster,   plans  in    1918   affecting,   319; 

provisions  for,  in  Home  Rule  Bill  of 

1919,  322. 
Ulster,    protests    against    Irish    Home 

Rule,  292-294. 
Under-Secretary,  in   Great  Britain,  73; 

in  France,  401-402;  in  Italy,  523. 
Unified   Socialist   party,  formed,  493; 

growth,     493-494;      program,    494" 


INDEX 


775 


495 ;  composition,  495-496 ;  recovery 

after  Great  War,  499;    loss  in  191 9, 

501. 
Unionist   party.  See    Conservative 

party. 
Union    Republicaine    el    Democratique, 

in  France,  500. 
United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and 

Ireland,  creation  of,  43-45. 
Universities,  representation  in  House  of 

Commons,  130-131. 

Valera,  Eamonn  de,  leader  of  Sinn  Fein, 
318;  elected  president  of  the  Irish 
republic,  321. 

Vereinigter  Landtag,  convoked  in  Prus- 
sia in  1847,  612. 

Versailles,  becomes  seat  of  French 
government,  376;  constitutional 
amendments  considered  at,  384 ;  presi- 
dent elected  at,  388;  legislative 
chambers  removed  from,  428;  Wil- 
liam I  crowned  at,  618. 

Veto,  obsolete  in  Great  Britain,  48; 
disallowance  of  colonial  legislation  by 
British  crown,  339;  in  Italy,  521; 
in  German  Empire,  630. 

Victor  Emmanuel  II,  accession  in 
Piedmont,  513;  makes  Cavour  prime 
minister,  513;  becomes  king  of  Italy, 

5*5- 

Victor  Emmanuel  III,  popularity,  521. 
Victoria,  Queen,  participation  in  public 

affairs,  64-65. 
Viviani,   reorganizes    French    ministry 

in  1914,  496;   resigns,  497. 
Voltaire,  upholds  absolutism,  360-361, 

365. 
V  or  parlament ,  at  Frankfort,  613. 

Wales,  union  with  England,  42  ;  quota 
of  seats  in  House  of  Commons,  113, 


121, 123;  disestablishment  of  Church, 
144,  156,  304-308;  Liberal  prepon- 
derance in,  265. 

Wallon  resolution,  380. 

Walpole,  Robert,  premiership  of,  36- 
37,  40,  102. 

War  Cabinet  established  in  Great 
Britain,  107-108;  records,  108; 
methods  of  work,  109 -no;  termi- 
nated, iio-in. 

War  Office,  in  Great  Britain,  78-79. 

Weimar,  German  constituent  assembly 
meets  at,  718. 

Welsh  Church  Acts,  304,  308. 

Westminster,  meeting-place  of  Parlia- 
ment, 164-166. 

Whig  party,  in  seventeenth  century,  41. 
See  Liberal  party. 

William  I,  seeks  to  reorganize  German 
armed  forces,  615;  crowned  at  Ver- 
sailles, 618. 

William  II,  accession,  678;  political 
ideas,  678-680;  attitude  toward 
army,  680;  sensational  interview  in 
Daily  Telegraph,  703-704;  promises 
political  reforms,  709;  abdicates,  711. 

William  III,  accession,  31;  ideas  of 
kingship,  35. 

Wilson,  Woodrow,  demands  reform  of 
German  government,  710. 

W'itenagemot,  3. 

Woman's  Social  and  Political  Union, 
126. 

Wurttemberg,  reserved  rights,  627. 

Young  Italy,  511. 

Zabern  incident,  705-706. 
Zcmski  Sobor,  convened,  739. 
Zemstvos,  established  in  Russia,  739. 
Zollverein,  611. 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America, 


•52  9     11 


UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA   AT   LOS   ANGELES 

THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


4  1933 


A! 


MAR  22  '93^  '#££ 


iAPR     b* 

APR  1  8  1939 

APR  28  194 

oCTn«* 

uov  it"* 

JUN  1  ",$£*" 
.....:  J  iJD't 

S&P18197D 


Form  I.  9-20m-8,'37 


<.. 


REC'D  LD-Ufit 

DEC  1 1  7933 


MRS 

AT 


§T158  00902  8597 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  823  104    5 


